WP(C) 666/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI HON’BLE DR. (MRS.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH (IA Ansari, J) Heard Mr. RC Saikia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, an d Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned counsel, who was initially impleaded as a respondent, but, later on, allowed to be transpositioned as petitioner No. 4. We have also h eard Mr. PS Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the State r espondents, and Mr. BN Thakuria, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. In view of the fact that the present writ petition has raised several disputed q uestions of facts and since a civil suit may be the appropriate remedy in the pr esent writ petition, it is submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that the pet itioners have decided to withdraw this writ petition and institute appropriate s uit or suits in the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for necessary reliefs and that in terms of this liberty, the writ petition may be allowed to be withdr awn subject to leave of the Court to approach this Court, too, with appropriate application, in future, if such a situation arises. We make it clear that it would remain open to the petitioners to institute appro priate suit and to seek, if they are so entitled to, necessary reliefs therein, interim or otherwise. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, this writ petition along with the miscellaneous case are disposed of as withd rawn by petitioners with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach this Cou rt with appropriate application, in future, if so advised. No order as to costs.