Court allows appeal, upholds right to withdraw writ petition, dismisses without costs.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the impugned judgment. The appellant's right to withdraw the writ petition was upheld, emphasizing that such right is almost absolute. The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, without imposing any costs, allowing the appellant to pursue the application before the Advance Ruling Authority. The court highlighted the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to writ petitions based on public policy considerations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the impugned judgment.
2. Right to withdraw a writ petition and the imposition of costs.
3. Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to writ petitions.
4. Validity of the appellant's application before the Advance Ruling Authority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Observations and Directions in Paragraphs (41) and (42) of the Impugned Judgment:
The appellant challenged the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the judgment dated 28.2.2020. The court had expressed deep displeasure over the appellant's counsel's endorsement to withdraw the writ petition with liberty, labeling it as a lack of professional ethics and denying any liberty to the petitioner. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on each writ petitioner, directing them to pay to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court of Madras.

2. Right to Withdraw a Writ Petition and the Imposition of Costs:
The appellant argued that the endorsement for withdrawal was made in good faith to pursue an application before the Advance Ruling Authority, which was pending. The learned counsel contended that the court's refusal to allow withdrawal and the imposition of costs were unjustified. The court acknowledged that the right to withdraw a claim is almost absolute, subject to certain limitations. It emphasized that once a request for withdrawal is made, the court should not proceed to adjudicate the matter unless there are unrepresented third-party rights or other contingencies.

3. Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to Writ Petitions:
The principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which govern the withdrawal of suits, were deemed applicable to writ petitions based on public policy. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which extended these principles to writ petitions to prevent bench-hunting and ensure the administration of justice. The court also cited other relevant judgments to support this view, including Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Kandapazha Nadar v. Chitraganiammal.

4. Validity of the Appellant's Application Before the Advance Ruling Authority:
The appellant had filed an application for advance ruling on the applicability of Goods and Service Tax concerning the tender. The court noted that the Advance Ruling Authority had not decided the application due to the pending writ petition. The learned Single Judge had earlier observed that the pendency of the writ petition should not preclude the Advance Ruling Authority from deciding the application. The court found that the appellant's pursuit of the application was bona fide and not an attempt at forum shopping.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant had a right to withdraw the writ petition and that the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the impugned judgment were not justified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside paragraphs (41) and (42) concerning the appellant. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the appellant's right to pursue the application before the Advance Ruling Authority. No costs were imposed.

---