Calcutta High Court
WPA/21276/2026 of MD.ANOWAR SADAT AND ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 1 September 2026
Sl. No.10 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 21276 of 2026 Md. Anowar Sadat & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Milan Ch. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharya, Mr. Arkadeb Biswas, Ms. Debarti Roy Chowdhury. …for the petitioner Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya, Ms. Snigdha Das.
01.09.2026
Sl. No.10
Ct No. 446
SG
WPA 21276 of 2026
Md. Anowar Sadat & Ors.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Milan Ch. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharya,
Mr. Arkadeb Biswas,
Ms. Debarti Roy Chowdhury.
…for the petitioner
Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya,
Ms. Snigdha Das.
…for the State
Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samir Kr. Ghosh.
…for respondent nos. 3 & 4
Ms. Sucharita Roy.
…for respondent nos. 5 & 8
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not want to proceed with this writ petition.
2. Written instruction as placed by Mr. Bhattacharjee is taken on record.
3. Mr. Ali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 3 & 4, vehemently opposes such prayer, contending that as and when any petition is filed, the petition becomes a part of the record of the Court, and a person cannot be given liberty to file a petition and withdraw the same at his whims and caprice. Referring to Rule 1(5) of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, he submits that nothing in this Rule shall be deemed to authorize the Court to permit one of the
2 petitioners to abandon a proceeding without the consent of the other petitioners.
4. In response, Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the written instruction contains the signatures of all the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that all the petitioners have given their consent for withdrawal of the present writ petition.
5. Needless to state, the petitioners are dominus litis and have the liberty not to proceed with this writ petition. The respondent can oppose the prayer for withdrawal of a writ petition made by a writ petitioner, subject to the condition that he should satisfy the Court that he will suffer prejudice if leave is granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. I do not find any material which can justify a decision that the respondent shall suffer prejudice if liberty is granted to the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition.
6. In view thereof, the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioners for withdrawal of the writ petition is accepted.
7. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)