1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2010 in Cri. Appln. No. 3768/2008 ( Manu Anil Kagliwal and others .vs. M/s Research Associated Venture Laboratories and Industries (Revlin) through its Proprietor ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Respondent no.1. .......... CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : August 02, 2010 Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner without obtaining consent of learned Advocate General is not maintainable in terms of Section 15 (1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In support of his submission, Mr. Khapre relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishwanath .vs. E.S. Venkatramaih and others reported in 1990 Cri. L.J. 2179. The ratio of this judgment is upheld by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala .vs. M.S. Mani and ors. reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3315. In view of the objection taken by learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Khandewale, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the 2 petition with liberty to file fresh petition after the consent of learned Advocate General is obtained. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn. Needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as may be available in law. The petition stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE halwai