THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3841 of 2011 Dated 08th November, 2011 Between: N.Satish Varma …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bobbili Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent Government in permitting the 3rd Respondent to flout the layout regulations by allowing internal roads with reduced width in respect of the proposed layout of 4th Respondent in Sy.No.25 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad by issuing G.O.Ms.No.12, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, dt.07.02.2011 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Layout Regulations and also contrary to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.416 Revenue dt.18.03.2003 and consequently set aside G.O.Ms.No.12, dt.07.01.2011 to that extent and direct the respondents to follow the Layout Regulations with regard to the width of internal roads.” At the hearing, Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition in terms of letter, dated 04.11.2011, addressed to the Registry. Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in W.P.M.P.No.28025 of 2011 for his impleadment as petitioner No.2, stated that his client is also aggrieved by G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 07.01.2011, impugned in the writ petition, and that permission to withdraw the writ petition if granted would cause prejudice to the interests of his client. The learned counsel placed reliance on Rule 16(a) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (for short ‘the Rules’) to support his application. Under Rule 16(a) of the Rules, the Court is vested with the power to join or strike out the name of any person for effectual and complete adjudication of the questions. Since the petitioner has sought for withdrawal of the writ petition, there is no need of adjudication of the issues raised by him in this writ petition. Therefore, this Rule does not come to the aid of the learned counsel for the applicant in the implead application. It is not the pleaded case of the applicant that he is disabled in law from initiating a fresh proceeding questioning the impugned G.O. When the petitioner does not intend to pursue the writ petition filed by him, the applicant in the implead application cannot insist that the writ proceedings shall be continued. The applicant failed to make out any case that if the writ petition is not continued, it causes injury to the public interest. If the applicant is personally aggrieved by the impugned G.O., by all means he can initiate substantive proceedings to question the same. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn and W.P.M.P.No.28025 of 2011 is also dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 15.03.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.4752 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4003 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th November, 2011 VGB