Judgment :- P.D. DINAKARAN, J. II. 1. We perused the affidavit filed by Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, a practising advocate, who initiated the Public Interest Litigation, W.P. No. 44540 of 2002 seeking a writ of declaration to declare G.O.Ms. No. 234, Revenue (Land Reforms 3(1)) Department, dated 17.6.2002 issued by the first respondent, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling) Act, 1961. 2. On 29.11.2006, the above writ petition was sought to be withdrawn by the Writ Petitioner, and the endorsement to that effect reads as under: “Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the above writ petition” 3. But, this Court, by order dated 29.11.2006, finding that permitting the writ petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition would not serve any purpose either to the writ petitioner or to the cause he sought to serve, refused the permission for the withdrawal of the writ petition and instead, permitted the writ petitioner to withdraw himself from the above writ petition and directed the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority to prosecute the writ petition. In the said order dated 29.11.2006, this Court also directed the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority. 4. The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 16.12.2006 stating that he was under bona fide impression that the course of action contemplated by the Government would completely govern the issue raised in the writ petition and therefore, there is no need to prosecute the writ petition. The petitioner, in the said affidavit, also tendered unconditional apology and prayed to expunge the adverse remarks made in the order dated 29.11.2006 as well as to remove the costs imposed. 5. Mr. K. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never intended to cause any prejudice to the public good. In that view of the matter, we accept the explanation offered by the writ petitioner as in his affidavit dated 16.12.2006 and the submission made by Mr. K. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and we also make it clear that the observation made in the order dated 29.11.2006 in W.P. No. 44540 of 2002 need not be construed to mean that it causes any personal aspersion against the writ petitioner as we have only, by order dated 29.11.2006, laid down the law. K. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and we also make it clear that the observation made in the order dated 29.11.2006 in W.P. No. 44540 of 2002 need not be construed to mean that it causes any personal aspersion against the writ petitioner as we have only, by order dated 29.11.2006, laid down the law. However, the direction issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority stands recalled. This petition is ordered accordingly. This order shall form part of the order dated 29.11.2006 in W.P. No. 44540 of 2002.