JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 25.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge rejecting the stay application filed along with the petitioners’ writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants briefly narrating the relevant facts stated that the petitioners have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 01.09.2018, whereby 27 candidates, including the petitioners were asked to reappear in the first year and second year B.A.M.S. Examination, conducted by the respondent - University. Pursuant to a cursory enquiry, the respondent - University found that answer-sheets of various students, including petitioners were changed, therefore, the University proceeded to cancel the result of those candidates for the said examinations. While canceling the result the University has scheduled a special examination for them in the month of September, 2018. Along with the challenge to the decision dated 01.09.2018, an interim relief of staying the ensuing examination pursuant thereto was also prayed for. Vide order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant such prayer of the petitioners and rejected the stay application, for which their writ petition had been rendered infructuous. 3. Learned counsel contended that in the facts of the present case and in absence of the interim relief, petitioners’ writ petition would be rendered redundant. 4. Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University, at the outset submitted that all the petitioners have already appeared in the said examination conducted by the University, pursuant to the impugned order, whereas the writ petition is yet to be decided by the learned Single Judge. While maintaining that the facts situation of the present case does not warrant any interference by the appellate forum, learned counsel for the respondent - University submitted that any adjudication by the Division Bench, at this juncture may influence the decision of the learned Single Judge. 5. In view of the fact situation obtaining in the present case, particularly as the petitioners have participated in the examinations which have been conducted by the University in the month of September, 2018, learned counsel for the appellants, instead of pressing the present appeal made an alternative prayer that the learned Single Judge be directed to decide the writ petition expeditiously. 6. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to accede to the alternative prayer made by the petitioners. Hence, instead of deciding the appeal on merit, we permit the appellants to withdraw the present appeal, lest the cause of the rival parties should be prejudiced. 7. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the subject writ petition, as early as possible, as the case involves the future of the students and sanctity of the examinations conducted by the respondent - University. 8. The intra-court appeal stands disposed of for statistical purposes.