JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03.03.2020 passed in WP No. 18627 of 2004 on the file of this Court. 1. This appeal has been filed as against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 18627 of 2004. 2. The said writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the first respondent viz., The Registrar, Annamalai University dated 22.06.2004 and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in T.S No. 2A, Block No.8, Kottur Village, Chennai and the building constructed thereon by adhering to the terms and conditions of the M.O.U. dated 04.09.1992. 3. By the order dated 03.03.2020, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by Dr. A. Kalanidhi, representing himself as the authorised signatory of the appellant Society along with a petition for interim stay of operation of the order passed by the learned single Judge on 03.03.2020. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 02.02.2021, it was brought the notice of this Court by Mr. L.P. Shanmuga Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing for first respondent that Anna University has received a letter dated 23.01.2021 from Indian Society for Technical Education that they have not authorised Dr. A. Kalanidhi to file this appeal at all and he portrayed himself as the authorised signatory of the appellant and filed the present writ appeal. It was also submitted that the said Dr. Kalanidhi has played fraud on this Court. In the letter dated 23.01.2021, the Executive Secretary of Indian Society for Technical Education has stated thus:- "I am surprised to learn that Dr. A. Kalanidhi has filed W.A. (SR) No. 66707/20, subsequently numbered as W.A. No. 57 of 2021 against W.P. No. 18627 of 2004 on behalf of Indian Society for Technical Education represented by its Executive Secretary, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg claiming that he is the authorised signatory of the Indian Society for Technical Education. I make it clear that neither myself nor the President nor any competent person of Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi authorised Dr.A. Kalanidhi to file the above writ appeal. Dr. I make it clear that neither myself nor the President nor any competent person of Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi authorised Dr.A. Kalanidhi to file the above writ appeal. Dr. A. Kalanidhi has taken a specific stand before the Honourable High Court, Madras which is against the interest of Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi as well as ISTE, Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry Section making a false claim that the Professional Centre was constructed by Building Committee and the income should go to the Building Committee. He has been right from the inception of the Professional Centre, misappropriating the income from the Professional Centre which belongs to ISTE. He initially claimed that the Professional Centre belongs to the Professional Centre Building Committee. Later, he claimed that the ISTE Professional Centre belongs to ISTE Professional Centre Trust. Making such false claim, he has been misappropriating the income from the ISTE Professional Centre which was constructed by the ISTE, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Section on the site allotted by Anna University for the benefit of ISTE, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Section. Dr. A. Kalanidhi has prevented the ISTE, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Section from having its professional centre in the new building which was constructed by the ISTE for the benefit of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Section. In violation of the conditions imposed by Anna University he has leased ISTE building to various commercial institutions. For arguing W.P. No. 18627 of 2004 when it came up for final hearing before the learned single Judge, the Indian Society for Technical Education engaged M/s. Muthumani Doraisami and Kandhan Duraisami, Advocates to represent ISTE as its Counsel. The above Writ Appeal has been filed by Dr.A. Kalanidhi with ulterior motive without any authority from Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi. Only to perpetuate the continuous misrepresentation of the income of ISTE Professional Centre, he has filed the above Writ Appeal without any authority. I request you to take appropriate steps for placing the correct facts before the Honourable Division Bench. We also request you to take necessary steps for prosecuting Dr. Only to perpetuate the continuous misrepresentation of the income of ISTE Professional Centre, he has filed the above Writ Appeal without any authority. I request you to take appropriate steps for placing the correct facts before the Honourable Division Bench. We also request you to take necessary steps for prosecuting Dr. A. Kalanidhi not only for falsely claiming that he has been authorised to file the above writ appeal on behalf of the Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi but also for continuous misrepresentation of the income of the Professional Centre established for the benefit of ISTE, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Section on the land assigned by Anna University, subject to certain conditions." 5. In the light of the above letter dated 23.01.2021 and by taking note of the submission made before this Court on 02.02.2021, this Court directed Dr. Kalanidhi to be present in the Court on 10.02.2021. 6. On 10.02.2021, when the writ appeal was taken up for hearing, Dr.Kalanidhi did not appear, as directed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she was not in a position to communicate the order passed by this Court on 02.02.2021 and therefore sought for time for appearance of Dr. Kalanidhi. Accordingly, the hearing of the writ appeal was adjourned to 16.02.2021 for appearance of Dr. Kalanidhi. 7. Even on 16.02.2021, Dr. Kalanidhi did not appear before this Court. Therefore, bailable warrant was issued to secure his presence and to produce him before this Court on 25.02.2021. 8. On 25.02.2021, Dr. Kalanidhi appeared before this Court and sought unconditional apology. He also filed a detailed affidavit. 9. Mr. Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the appellant on 25.02.2021, submitted that the appellant has instructed to file an appeal as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appellant ought to have filed this appeal after obtaining leave of this Court as a third party. The counsel, out of ignorance, filed the present appeal without obtaining leave. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant also submitted that he filed the appeal only as an authorised signatory of Indian Society Professional Centre. He has also produced document to show that Indian Society Professional Centre had authorised the appellant to file this appeal and it will show the appellant intended to file an appeal for and on behalf of the Professional Centre only. 10. He has also produced document to show that Indian Society Professional Centre had authorised the appellant to file this appeal and it will show the appellant intended to file an appeal for and on behalf of the Professional Centre only. 10. In the affidavit, Dr.Kalanidhi has stated that he was in Texas, United States of America and he came to know about the order passed by this Court through the newspaper, as communicated by his friends. Immediately, he departed from Texas, United States of America on 22.02.2021 and reached Chennai on the night of 23.02.2021. He has further stated that he was planning to see his daughter and grand daughter in the month of January 2021, but due to the travel restrictions owing to Covid-19 Pandemic, he booked ticket only on 02.02.2021, departed Chennai on 10.02.2021 and reached the residence of his daughter at Chicago on 11.02.2021. However, after hearing the order passed by this Court, he immediately rushed to Chennai on 23.02.2021, as mentioned above. Dr.Kalanidhi has further stated in the affidavit that he was the Managing Trustee of IST Professional Centre. He was not aware of the fact that Indian Society for Technical Education has filed this appeal. Due to inadvertence and lack of communication between himself and his lawyer, the appeal was filed. Thus he sought for unconditional apology for having filed this appeal representing the Indian Society for Technical Education. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has also filed a supporting affidavit to the following effect: "4. I further state that during Covid-Pandemic myself and client were unable to meet in person and the instruction was received over phone and mail and the appeal was filed. Due to oversight the cause title of the appeal is not properly stated and it was accidental. Instead of filing the appeal in the capacity of authorised signatory to the Indian Society Professional Centre, the appeal was filed on the name of Indian Society Technical Centre, which was the writ petitioner, by mistake. I have no intention of misleading the Court. I filed authorisation letter of Mr. Dr. A. Kalanithi representing the Indian Society for Professional Centre at the time of filing and also he had signed in the capacity of same. Hence, the mistake in cause title occurred only due to inadvertence. The affidavit filed by Dr. I have no intention of misleading the Court. I filed authorisation letter of Mr. Dr. A. Kalanithi representing the Indian Society for Professional Centre at the time of filing and also he had signed in the capacity of same. Hence, the mistake in cause title occurred only due to inadvertence. The affidavit filed by Dr. A. Kalanidhi is true and correct and due to lack of communication between me and him. 5. In the above circumstances, Mr. Dr. Kalanidhi filed in his affidavit that he is withdrawing the appeal. Hence, I may be permitted to withdraw the appeal accepting the supporting affidavit and thus render justice. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appellant has purposefully filed the appeal knowing fully well about the consequences that may flow therefrom. The appellant has played a fraud on this Court by misrepresentation. Therefore, he opposed the appellant withdrawing the present Appeal. 13. Mr. Muthumani Doraisamy, learned Senior counsel, who appeared for the Writ Petitioner before the learned single Judge, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed in this writ appeal by the Registrar, Anna University, has submitted that Dr. A. Kalanidhi has deliberately filed the Writ Appeal to mislead this Court. Therefore, he prayed this Court to permit Anna Universityt o launch prosecution against Dr. A. Kalanidhi. 14. Mr. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for Anna Unviersity in this appeal also reiterated his submission that for having filed the appeal with misrepresentation, Dr. Kalanidhi has to be criminally prosecuted. He therefore prayed this Court to permit Anna University to take appropriate action to launch prosecution as against Dr. Kalanidhi. 15. We have heard the counsel on either side and have gone through the material records placed. We are of the opinion that when it was brought to the notice of this Court that Dr. Kalanidhi was not authorised to file an appeal on behalf of Indian Society for Technical Education, we have issued notice to Dr.Kalanidhi to seek his response. Subsequently, we have also issued Bailable warrant to him and he has also appeared before this Court. Dr. Kalanidhi has also filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. The counsel engaged by Dr. Kalanidhi has also filed a supporting affidavit, which we have taken on record. Thus, it is clear that the appeal has been erroneously filed by Dr.Kalanidhi without being authorised by the appellant Society. Dr. Kalanidhi has also filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. The counsel engaged by Dr. Kalanidhi has also filed a supporting affidavit, which we have taken on record. Thus, it is clear that the appeal has been erroneously filed by Dr.Kalanidhi without being authorised by the appellant Society. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as Dr. Kalanidhi is a third party to the writ proceedings. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to issue any direction in this writ appeal directing Dr. Kalanidhi to vacate the property or to grant permission to Anna University to launch prosecution as against Dr. Kalanidhi. We are also informed that already a Civil Case is pending and therefore, it is left open to the parties to agitate their right in the Civil Proceedings. At the same time, we are also opinion that there is a mistake on the part of the counsel also in filing the present appeal without seeking leave of this Court. The haste with which the writ appeal was filed without verifying the array of the parties to the writ petition is to be deprecated. In any event, taking note of the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant, we are of the view that the writ appeal has to be dismissed as withdrawn and no further order is required to be passed in this writ appeal. 16. In the result, we dismiss the writ appeal as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is/are closed.