1. This writ petition filed as PIL, seeks intervention of this Court to restrain the President of India to "forcibly" extract resignations from various Governors and Lt. Governors, Respondents 3 to 29, and further for a direction to the President not to accept the "involuntary" resignations of the Governors and Lt. Governors submitted in January 1990.

2. The prayers in this writ petition are as follows

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the resignations of the respondent Governors and Lt. Governors

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions restraining the President from accepting the involuntary and forced resignations of Governors and Lt. Governors

(c) Declare that the communication of the President seeking the resignations of Governors and Lt. Governors is ultra vires the Constitution of India." *

3. The writ petition was referred to the Constitution Bench by an order of a two-Judge Bench of this Court dated 9-2-1990 (Ranji Thomas v. Union of India, (see below) having regard to the importance of the question concerning the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution in the context of the scheme of Chapter II of the Constitution of India.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India it is stated that there has been no "forcible extraction" of the resignations and that the Governors had resigned "without any protest".

5. The learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India submits that this public interest litigation is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, since none of the Governors or Lt. Governors have approached this Court or protested against their being asked to resign and that the petitioner cannot challenge an act which the party affected does not wish to nor intend to challenge. He relies upon the observations made by this Court in the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 SC 599 [LQ/SC/1980/456] : 1981 SC 599) [LQ/SC/1980/456] .

6. In so far as prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petition are concerned, we find force in the submission of the learned Attorney General. But, insofar as prayer (c) of the writ petition is concerned, it raises an important public issue and involves the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution of India, as at present advised, we do not think that we can deny locus to the petitioner for raising that issue.

7. We, however, find that the material on the record for seeking adjudication of that issue is absolutely scanty and wanting. What communication was sent by the President has not even been disclosed. As a matter of fact no material, except a couple of newspaper reports, the correction of which also has not been verified or authenticated by the petitioner, has been placed on record by the petitioner to provide a factual matrix for consideration of the writ petition.

8. Faced with this situation, the petitioner, who appears in person, submits that he has been unable to procure the relevant material and place the same on record in support of the averments made in the writ petition filed about ten years ago. He, therefore, seeks to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. No costs.