JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners and other similarly situated persons were promoted to the posts of Head Constable (M)/ CM. However, some illegalities or irregularities were observed in the promotion exercise, therefore, FIR was lodged and CBI investigated the matter. Later on, promotion orders were cancelled vide orders dated 02.12.2011 and 05.12.2011. Few promotees preferred writ petitions before this Court and few promotees preferred writ petitions before Delhi High Court and other High Courts. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.02.2012, was pleased to allow the writ petition no. 1840 of 2011 & other connected petitions quashing orders dated 02.12.2011 and 05.12.2011. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court also quashed the orders dated 02.12.2011 and 05.12.2011 vide judgment dated 16.10.2012. Consequently, cancellation orders of petitioners as well as other similarly situated promotees were withdrawn/revoked, in view of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as Division Bench of Delhi High Court. 2. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and others on 29.05.2013 calling them to show cause as to why they should not be declared failed and as to why their promotions/appointment to the post of Head Constable (M)/CM may not be cancelled. 3. Thereafter, respondents issued one letter dated 26.12.2013 to the petitioners to apprise the Authorities as to whether any stay order is in existence in their favour for not proceeding against them pursuant to show cause notice dated 29.05.2013. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred this writ petition assailing the show cause notice dated 25.09.2013 as well as letter dated 26.12.2013. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have every apprehension that authorities without following the procedure, prescribed under the law, shall pass order quashing the promotion/ appointment order of the petitioners on the post of Head Constable (M)/ CM pursuant to the show cause notice. He further submits that trial is pending before the competent criminal court about the illegality or alleged payment of bribe for promotion, therefore, it would not be proper for the authorities to pass order in haste against the petitioners cancelling their promotion/appointment orders on the post of Head Constable (M)/CM. 6. He further submits that trial is pending before the competent criminal court about the illegality or alleged payment of bribe for promotion, therefore, it would not be proper for the authorities to pass order in haste against the petitioners cancelling their promotion/appointment orders on the post of Head Constable (M)/CM. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India submits that apprehension of the petitioners is misconceived and no writ petition is maintainable only on the basis of apprehension or in anticipation that adverse order may be passed against the petitioners without following the procedure prescribed under the law. He further states that before passing the final order pursuant to the show cause notice, authorities shall follow the procedure prescribed under the law and shall not pass any order in haste without following the procedure established by law. 7. In view of the above statement, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh, if need be. 8. Permitted to be withdrawn with aforesaid liberty 9. CLMA No. 37 of 2014 also stands disposed of.