1 6 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3973/2005. Sanjay Sukhadia & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 5th December 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. P.S. Chundawat, for the petitioners. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Advocate General Mr. D.L.R. Vyas for Mr. B.M. Bohra, for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: The petitioners have moved an application (IA No.16725/2008) seeking permission to withdraw with the following submissions:- “2. That the prayer for cancellation of the P.L granted in favour of the Respondent no. 5 was made under the impression that P.L granted was for the same area for which the Petitioners applied for M.L. But now they have come to know that P.L was not granted on the area applied by the Petitioners, hence they are advised to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to file afresh.” For the aforesaid submissions as made in paragraph 2 of the application, it is but apparent that the petitioners proceeded to challenge the prospecting licence granted in favour of the respondent No. 5 without having any cause to contend against the same and this writ petition could only be treated without the essentials of cause of action. In this view of 2 the matter, no further observations are requisite so far the prayer as made by the petitioners of extending liberty to file afresh is concerned. It goes without saying that if the petitioners have any cause of action and take resort to appropriate remedy, the same would be considered in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has otherwise no objection if the petitioners withdraw. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw; and this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/