Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to pursue the available alternative remedy.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State authorities and private respondents.

After hearing arguments for some time, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available in law.

The matter was therefore considered only on the question of withdrawal and grant of liberty.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the alternative remedy available under law.

2. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the petitioner’s request.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a litigant may seek withdrawal of a writ petition, and that the Court may permit such withdrawal while preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue an efficacious alternative remedy available under law.

The order does not cite any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent; the general jurisdictional context is Article 226 of the Constitution.

After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the Court recorded the request to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the alternative remedy.

Since the petitioner voluntarily sought withdrawal and did not press the writ petition on merits, the Court did not examine the underlying dispute, the maintainability of the writ petition, or the merits of the claims.

It accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn while preserving the petitioner’s liberty.

The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the annexures to the petitioner’s counsel after retaining attested true copies.