Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
M/S.CRESCENT HOLLOW BRICKS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,MUHAMMED SHAREEF.K.S – Appellant
Versus
KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11025 OF 2015
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE, SMT.A.A.GEETHA
For the Respondents: SRI.BABU T.CHERIYAN, DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SRI.K.V.SABU
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE, SMT.A.A.GEETHA
For the Respondents: SRI.BABU T.CHERIYAN, DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SRI.K.V.SABU
A petitioner retains the right to withdraw a writ petition and refile as necessary under procedural law.
Headnote:In this judgment, the court addressed the issue of withdrawal of a writ petition. Under the procedural guidelines, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw and was allowed to do so with liberty to refile if necessary. The court concluded that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, reaffirming the right of the petitioner to file a new petition in the future.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. withdrawal of writ petition (Para 1) |
| 2. dismissal of petition with liberty (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition, if needed.
2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as stated above.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE Shg/
