Judgment 1. In this matter a mention was made on 3 April, 2001 to the effect that the petitioner desires to withdraw the writ petition. On that date the directions of the Motion Bench were only to the effect that the interlocutory application seeking withdrawal of the case may be placed before the appropriate Bench. The interlocutory application seeking withdrawal of the case was placed before this Bench. When the interlocutory application was listed it was brought to the notice of the Court that similar cases perhaps are the same as were listed before the Court on 28 April, 2000 at pages 11 and 12. The Court recorded its order on 9 April, 2001 and the Registry was required to report. In pursuance of the order of the Court, the Registry reported by its report of 10 April, 2001 that there are several cases which have been tagged with the present case. In fact, the record shows that this case is virtually taking the lead on the other cases. 2. If this case is permitted to be withdrawn on the interlocutory application, a question will arise what will happen to other cases which have been connected with the present one? 3. Further, the interlocutory application is not so simple and innocent as it looks. When the writ petition was filed the petitioner readily sought and upon consideration was granted an ad interim order on 25 August, 1995 by the Bench of their Lordships : Honble G.B. Patnaik, C.J. and Honble Dharmpal Sinha, J. The retrospective demand was stayed. In so far as the current demands are concerned, the petitioner received 75% relief and was required to pay only 25% of the enhanced demand. Clearly, a question would be that should the petition be permitted to be withdrawn what would happen to the tax not paid for the last five and a half years? 4. The Court cannot permit games to be played with the process of the Court. The petitioner may receive a stay order, enjoy it for five and a half years, withdraw the petition and escape the incidence of the tax. This would be an abuse of the stay order. Clearly, this petition has to be heard. 5. 4. The Court cannot permit games to be played with the process of the Court. The petitioner may receive a stay order, enjoy it for five and a half years, withdraw the petition and escape the incidence of the tax. This would be an abuse of the stay order. Clearly, this petition has to be heard. 5. If the petitioner desires to withdraw the petition, the Court will have no objection provided he makes up the deposit of the tax on which he was granted a stay order as it would only be just that the circumstances should be mitigated as on the day when the petition was brought and as if the High Court had not passed the stay order. 6. Thus, this interlocutory application no. 1579 of 2001 is rejected.