revive and prosecute their criminal complaints which were withdrawn being Nos. 4493 of 2004, 4586 of 2004 and 4690 of 2004 filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik. The said Criminal Misc. Petition is pending. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court is seized of the several issues raised in this Writ Petition, it will not be possible for us to entertain it. At this stage, Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. He, however, points out that a patently false statement is made in the affidavit filed in the present Writ petition by one Mr. U.G. Zalte, Chief Engineer of the First and Second Respondents. In that affidavit submissions recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 3rd August, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.374 of 2004 have been described as the findings of the Learned Single Judge. We have been taken through that affidavit and we find substance in Mr. Shirodkar's grievance. At this stage learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 says that this statement is the result of an inadvertent error. On behalf of the first and second respondents he tenders an unconditional apology for it. We accept his unconditional apology. In view of this, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such.
