Withdrawal of PIL - When can be refused - Court can seek the assistance of experts – Decisions are not “one-shot” determinations but have on going implications –Inappropriate to write letters to the judges .
In a public interest litigation , unlike traditional dispute-resolution-mechanism , there is no determination or adjudication of individual rights. While in the ordinary conventional adjudications the party structure is merely bi-polar and the controversy pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events and the remedy is essentially linked to and limited to the logic of the array of parties , in a public interest action of the proceedings cut across and transcend these traditional forms and inhibitions .The technique of public interest litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce these group-rights and interests, the relief to granted looks to the future and is , generally corrective rather than compensatory which, sometimes, it also is. The pattern of relief need not necessarily be derived logically from the rights asserted or found. Court is not merely a passive, disinterested umpire or onlooker , but has a more dynamic and positive role with the responsibility for the organization of the proceedings , molding of relief's and this is important also supervising the implementation thereof. Final disposal not expeditious. Not a justification for withdrawal of PIL. Unable to prosecute the proceedings with "dignity" is not a ground. Only a private litigant can abandon the proceedings. Court not granted permission and forbid the petitioner from going back from the proceedings. The lowering of locus standi threshold does not involve the recognition or creation of any vested rights on the part of those who initiate the proceedings analogous to dominus litis .. [Sheela Barse vs Union of India. AIR 1988 SC 2211= (1988) Crimes 339 =1988 (3) JT 765 = 1988(1)SCR 210 = (1988)4 SCC 226. R.N.Misra and M.N.Venkitachaliah.{JJ}]
Withdrawal – Courts to be guarded against the withdrawal – Abuse of process of law.
Petitioners request for permission to withdraw the petition solely for the reason that State Government had cancelled the impugned orders cannot easily comprehended. The status of “dominis litis “ cannot be enforced on a person who brings public interest litigation , as that would render the proceedings in public interst litigations vulnerable to and susceptible of a new dimension which might , in conceivable cases, be used by persons for personal ends resulting in prejudice to the public weal. [ Nature Lovers Movement vs State of Kerala. ILR 2000 (3) Kerala 19. AR.Lakshmanan & K.Narayana Kurup (JJ)]
Withdrawal - Public Interest litigation – Not permitted at the sweet will of petitioner
Petition cannot be withdrawn without prior permission of court. Whether the permission should be granted is based on the consideration of the public interest and checking abuse of process of court. Permission cannot be granted where petitioner seeks to raise the same question from court to court. Such permission is to be granted after considering the public interest and ensuring that it does not result in abuse of process of law. [ S.P.Anand vs.H.D.Deva Gowda. AIR 1997 SC 272 = 1997 AIRSCW 18 = 1996 (10) JT 274 = 1996( 1 )6 SCC 734. A.H.Ahamadi (CJ) & Sujatha.V.Manohar (J)]
Withdrawal of Public Interest not permitted – Amicus curiae appointed to help the Court.
PIL challenging the validity of amendment to the CPC – After notice petitioner sought leave to withdraw the PIL – Prayer declined – Amicus curiae was appointed – Case decided [Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India. 2002 AIRSCW 4627 = JT 2002 (9) JT 175 . B.N.Kirpal (CJ), Y.K.Sabharwal and Arijit Pasayat (JJ)]