94 cases the petitioner is not entitled to withdraw his petition at his sweet will unless the court sees reason to permit withdrawal. In granting permission the court would be guided by the considerations of public interest and would also ensure that it does not result in abuse of process of the law.” I fully endorse the views and find no reason to depart from the same principle, because in publicly important cases the Supreme Court being the guardian of the constitution after seizing the issue cannot remain a silent spectator even after noticing that there was violation of the constitution or the law. This Court always keeps in mind that PIL is not a litigation of an adversary character undertaken for the purpose of holding the government or its officers responsible for making reparation but it is a dispute which involves a collaborative and co-operative effort on the part of the State or its Officers, the lawyers appearing in the case and the court for the purpose of making human rights meaningful for the community or protecting the independence of the judiciary.