ORDER :

Facts are being taken from W.P.(Crl) No.109/2013, which is the lead case in this batch of matters.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, we find that the writ petition was premature. The petitioners seek for the prayers as have been couched in the writ petition where the petitioners pray for issuance of mandamus to determine the question of law, as to whether the allegation of commission of offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 would construe a bailable offence with further directions to comply with Sections 154, 155 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a cognizable/non-cognizable offence, if any, under Section 135 of the Customs Act. In fact, when we perused the averments contained in the Writ Petition the provocation for the petitioner to file this writ petition was the so-called search conducted in the residential premises of the petitioner's ex-wife on 11.06.2013, who was residing at C-103, Gokul Divine, James Wadi, Irla, Ville Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 and nothing incriminating was detected in the said search. It was further averred therein that the Officers threatened that the petitioner would be arrested, incarcerated in jail and would face dire consequence if he would not submit to their dictates. On that basis the writ petition came to be filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, expressed that it was highly premature for the petitioner to seek for extraordinary constitutional remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India based on such flimsy averments contained in the writ petition, inasmuch as such averments cannot form the basis for a prima facie apprehension of arrest. We, therefore, also expressed that the writ petition does not merit any consideration to be dealt with on the various issues raised, inasmuch as it will be for the petitioner to work out his remedy as and when any appropriate positive action is taken against the petitioner. In the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner now seeks to withdraw the writ petition reserving petitioner's liberty to work out his remedy in future, if any such situation arises.

4. Learned Solicitor General of India on the other hand submitted that after rule was issued in this writ petition spate of writ petitions came to be filed citing the notice issued in this writ petition and the interim order granted in this writ petition was also extended in all the subsequent writ petitions wherever the arrest did not take place. Learned Solicitor General further contended that by virtue of the pendency of the writ petition for more than a year in this Court the initiatives taken by the respondents-Authorities for the alleged violations under the provisions of the Customs Act/Central Excise Act by issuance of the summons could not be proceeded with and thereby the respondents-Authorities were put to serious prejudice. Learned Solicitor General further contended that by resorting to withdrawal of the writ petitions and by seeking to reserve their liberties, it should not give scope for the petitioners to again scuttle the actions that may be initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Acts as well as the Code.

5. While appreciating the respective contentions of the parties and for the present moment as we find that the petitioners have expressed their desire to withdraw these writ petitions realizing the remote possibility of getting any relief in these writ petitions having regard to the premature stage at which this Court was approached by filing of these writ petitions, we are convinced that the petitioners can be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with the right to work out their remedy as and when any appropriate situation arises for working out such remedy. We also make it clear that whatever impediment caused in pursuing the proceedings by the respondents pursuant to the issuance of the su