Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—The matter comes up for final disposal at admission stage as per orders passed by this Court on 26th of May 2014.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On 26th of May 2014, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and thereunder following order was passed:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition but learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there is fining of misleading this court in the order dated 7.4.2014 therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief prayed for.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter is required to be decided on merit, therefore matter may be heard if not then the stay may be vacated.

It is true that co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order on 7.4.2014 in which, certain observations are made with regard to conduct of the petitioner Association but upon raising objection by the respondents' counsel, I deem it appropriate to hear this matter finally because this writ petition is pending since 2011, therefore, list this matter on 10.7.2014 in first ten cases on this date, matter may be decided finally.

The stay order granted by this court shall remain in force till text date of hearing."

3. Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that petitioner is well within his right to seek permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition and therefore permission be granted for withdrawal of the writ petition. Mr. Joshi has urged that an aggrieved party, who has approached this Court, can withdraw the petition at any stage and Order 23 Rule 1 Sub-rule (1) give unqualified right to the suitor to withdraw suit or the proceedings. In support of his contention, Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on a verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hulas Rai Baij Nath vs. Firm K.B. Bass & Co. (AIR 1968 SC 111), wherein while examining the true purport of Order 23 Rule 1 sub-rule (1) of CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"In any case, we do not think that any defendant in a suit for rendition of accounts can insist that the plaintiff must be compelled to proceed with the suit at such a stage as the one at which the respondent in the present case applied for withdrawal of the suit.

4. Mr. Joshi has also placed reliance on yet another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shaik Hussain & Sons vs. M.G. Kannaiah & Anr. (1981) 3 SCC 71). In this verdict on the right of an aggrieved individual to withdraw petition, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"...It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case when the respondent himself did not want to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or having invoked the same did not want to press this writ petition. For these reasons, therefore, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court in appeal as also that of the single Judge allowing the writ petition. The result of our order would be that the writ petition before the High Court would be treated as having been withdrawn and not pressed. The appeal is accordingly allowed but as the respondent has not appeared, there will be no orders as to costs."

5. Vehemently opposing the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Dave, has submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner permission to withdraw the writ petition cannot be granted. Mr. Dave has argued that petition has been filed by an unauthorized person by projecting himself as Secretary of the society whereas in fact no such society is in existence, therefore, permission cannot be granted. Mr. Dave would contend that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, clean mind and clean object and the entire petition is f