JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, CJ. In the above public interest litigation the residents of the locality seek a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to stop the construction of commercial complex at site No.228 RHCS Layout, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, Bangalore which is a residential area and to comply with the master plan and the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. They have also sought for a direction to the respondents to withdraw the permission granted for transfer of excise licence vide Lie. No.EXEIML 41CL-9-07-08 transferred on 110.2007. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. It is settled law that residents of a locality have got every right to file public interest litigation for the enforcement of the town planning or exhibition of the planning permission in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioners have rightly set the law on motion by way of the present public interest litigation to stop the construction of the commercial complex. Having thus chosen to set the law in motion, now the Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. The coming into being of a public interest litigation itself is on account of deprivation of legal right to a group of people who, once this realisation dawns on them, choose to move the Court with a few representing the whole group and once that is done, to revert back and to express the desire to withdraw the petition tantamounts to an admission on the part of the representatives of the group that there was no such denial of any right to them by the authorities, which invariably should• make the Court doubt the very motive and good intention of the group itself in the first place and therefore we strongly deprecate the present move. 3. The Apex Court had occasion to deal with a situation wherein a public interest litigation filed was sought to be withdrawn. In turning down the said request the Apex Court in the case of Sheela Barse Vs. 3. The Apex Court had occasion to deal with a situation wherein a public interest litigation filed was sought to be withdrawn. In turning down the said request the Apex Court in the case of Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India reported in (1988) 4 see 226 observed that the person who moves a writ petition in public interest cannot be allowed to appropriate to himself the prerogative to decided as to what course the litigation should take as it is not for one individual to do so, as what is involved therein is the interest of larger group of aggrieved citizens observed thus: "36. The third ground is that the proceedings are brought as a "voluntary action" and that applicant is entitled to sustain her right to be the "petitioner-in-person" in a public interest litigation and that the proceedings cannot be proceeded with after delinking her from the proceedings. This again proceeds on certain fallacies as to the rights of a person who brings a public interest litigation. Any recognition of any such vested right in the persons who initiate such proceedings is to introduced a new and potentially harmful element in the judicial administration of this form of public law remedy. That apart, what is implicit in the assertion of the applicant is the appropriation to herself of the right and wisdom to determine the course the proceedings are to or should take and its pattern. This cannot be recognised. In the present proceedings the Court has already gone through and has initiated an elaborate exercise as indicated in the orders excerpted earlier. The petition cannot be permitted to be abandoned at this stage. Only a private litigant can abandon his claims. 37. Though the main prayer is one for the withdrawal of the petition, in the written submissions, however, the applicant seems to strike a different not and seeks to participate in the proceeding subject to certain conditions. No litigant can be permitted to stipulate conditions with the Court for the continuance of his or her participation." We are not happy 4. Though the main prayer is one for the withdrawal of the petition, in the written submissions, however, the applicant seems to strike a different not and seeks to participate in the proceeding subject to certain conditions. No litigant can be permitted to stipulate conditions with the Court for the continuance of his or her participation." We are not happy 4. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, we refuse to permit the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition and pass the following order: If the Corporation is satisfied that the 1st respondent-Builder is violating the sanctioned plan and constructing a shopping complex in the residential area contrary to the sanctioned plan and the relevant rules it suffice to direct the respondents: (i) The Corporation is directed to take action against the 1st respondent Builder for violating the sanctioned plan and constructing a shopping complex in the residential area. (ii) Even if the respondents-5 and 6 construct a residential building, they shall not use the premises for the purpose of bar and restaurant in the residential area.