ORDER : 1. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee and Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel, appearing in W.P. No. 250 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.434 of 2006 respectively state that in view of the affidavit dated 6.8.2007 filed by the Chief Election Commissioner they do not want to proceed with these writ petitions and, if need be, the petitioners would approach the Chief Election Commissioner by way of independent representation who may deal with it in accordance with law. 2. The learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Gopal. Subramaium, appearing for the Union of India contests the affidavit dated 6.8.2007 filed by the Chief Election Commissioner and asserts that it is the Executive Government alone which has the power and responsibility to initiate action for removal of the Election Commissioner. 3. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4, states that the Chief Election Commissioner has no power to make any recommendations under Second Proviso to Article 324(5) except on a reference made to it by the President of India while considering the removal of an Election Commissioner. That Chief Election Commissioner has no power of suo moto recommendation whether binding on the P resident or not is already negatived by binding judgments. 4. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee as well as Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners state that they contest the stand taken by the Union of India and Mr. Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioners do not want to proceed with the writ petitions, the writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn. The permission to withdraw the writ petition shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the part of this Court regarding the questions involved. All questions and contentions of the parties are left open.