1. The framers of the Constitution had thought it proper to provide special remedy to the Citizens in High Courts by incorporating provisions in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Courts are empowered with the jurisdiction, which is of an extra-ordinary nature, for redressal of grievance of the citizens with the object of immediate relief. But it is often found that grievances raised before the said forum are not genuine and in fact it is misused by certain people, resulting in wasting of precious time of the court and creating hurdles for those who really need justice from it. In some cases proceedings are initiated and interim relief obtained but lateron the proceedings are brought to an end by those very persons.

2. In the case of Anant Prasad Pandey v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal & others- [(2002)2 MPLJ 369] decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, an observation was made by Mr. Justice Deepak Mishra, as he then was, as under:

'Occasions do arise in certain cases where the litigants try to take advantage of certain situations by seeking withdrawal of the application which they have moved seeking certain reliefs. But when the attempt is quite adroit and the intention is not sanguine and the effort is made to frustrate the cause of justice and to have an advantage because of withdrawal, the Courts are under an obligation not to grant permission to withdraw. A litigant cannot visit the Court as if it is a laboratory. He cannot endeavour to play a game of Chess. He cannot be permitted to box the compass. The purpose of saying so is that when the case was called the learned counsel for the petitioner stood up and sought permission seeking withdrawal of the adjudication the sacrosanctity of law has to be saved. In that backdrop, this Court thought it apposite not to grant leave to withdraw the writ petition. The pristine purity of law has to be maintained and no one should be allowed to spoil the alter of the temple.'

3. Some what similar situation had arisen in the instant case when it was taken up for hearing. This court was informed that both the counsels for the Jaipur Development Authority are no more representing it. Therefore, directions were given by this court, with the consent of the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority who was present in person, to Shri N.K. Maloo, Senior advocate to represent the said respondent. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by one Bhawani Shankar Sharma to be impleaded as party to the writ petition. After thoroughly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court vide order dated 25.7.2012 allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for impleading the applicant as party respondent. The newly impleaded party then filed a detailed reply to the writ petition. It had also filed a stay application along with documents with the prayer to issue directions to the Jaipur Development Authority to remove the encroachment from Khasra nos. 224, 225, 295 and 297, measuring 6 bighas 14 biswas situated at village Chainpura Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. Further, it was prayed that stringent action be taken against the petitioner as well as the defaulting officers/officials of the Jaipur Development Authority.

4. When the matter came up before the court on 8.8.2012 to consider the stay application filed by Bhawani Shankar Sharma- respondent no.5, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application on behalf of the petitioner has been filed for withdrawal of the writ petition and, accordingly, the petitioner may be permitted to do so. To this, a serious objection was raised by the counsels for the Jaipur Development Authority as well as the respondent no.4, namely, the New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited. Therefore, arguments were advanced from both the sides on the question of withdrawal of the writ petition and objection to it by the respondents.

5. Before considering the prayer of