WP(C) 5730/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. S. Chakrabort y, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati University, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents. Appearing on behalf of the Gauhati university (hereinafter referred to a s the ’respondent university’), Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, points out tha t as per the Circular, contained in Memo No. CON/EXR/Noti/08, dated 07.01.2009, of the Gauhati University, the candidates under betterment/repeat category will not be allowed to seek re-evaluation of their answer scripts. Considering the fact that the Circular, contained in the Memorandum, dat ed 07.01.2009, aforementioned is not under challenge in the present writ petitio n, it is submitted, on behalf of the writ petitioner, that the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach this Court with appropri ate application, in future, if so advised. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel for the respondent university, has raised no objection to the submissio n so made on behalf of the writ petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn by the writ petitioner with, however, the liberty granted to the petitioner to appr oach this Court with appropriate application, in future, if so advised. However, it needs to be pointed out, in this regard, that the petitioner has already paid the requisite fees for re-evaluation of his answer scripts and since re-evaluation is not permissible according to the respondent university i n terms of their Circular aforementioned, it is hereby directed that the fee, wh ich has already been collected from the petitioner by the respondent university as re-evaluation fee, shall be refunded as and when the petitioner approaches th e respondent university for the said purpose.