The court affirmed that a party may withdraw a contempt case without reserving specific liberties, maintaining the inherent right to further legal recourse.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

After arguing this matter for some time, Sri. B. Renjithkumar - appearing for the petitioner, conceded that the competent Authority of the Union of India, has been omitted to be arrayed in the party array. He, prayed that this Contempt Case be, therefore, allowed to be withdrawn; with liberty being reserved to his client to file a fresh one, arraying all proper parties.

2. Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan appearing for the respondents, submitted that his clients do not object to this Contempt Case being dismissed as withdrawn; but prayed that no specific liberty be reserved in favor of the petitioner.

3. We have no doubt that the request of Sri.

B. Renjithkumar - learned Counsel, to withdraw this Contempt Case, must be acceded to; and on the question of liberty, we are of the firm view that even without such being expressly reserved, the petitioner may obtain further rights as per law.

In the above circumstances, the Contempt Case is dismissed as having been withdrawn; with liberties as available to the petitioner in law being clarified to be not precluded.

Sd/-