' The applicant through this application has sought withdrawal of Rs,5,000.
2. The relevant facts are that one Mohabbat Ali filed a Constitutional petition whereby he assailed the order dated 1-9-1988 passed by respondent No,5. The applicant was arrayed as respondent No,1 in this writ petition. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed with costs of Rs,5,000 vide judgment dated 3-101989. It is stated that the costs have been deposited and the applicant wants to withdraw the same. Notice of this application was issued to the Government and Rana Muhammad Arshad, Additional Advocate-General has appeared.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the costs have been deposited and his client is entitled to withdraw the same.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General submits that there were five respondents including the applicant, therefore, the amount has to be distributed equally between them.
' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides. The writ petition was dismissed with costs which were allowed to all the respondents and not the present applicant alone. Therefore, he alone cannot be allowed to withdraw the same. There is merit in the argument of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the amount has to be equally divided amongst the respondents who contested the writ petition. In this view of the matter the applicant is allowed to withdraw Rs,1,000 out of the costs of Rs,5,000 deposited by the writ petitioner. The remaining amount will go to the State.