IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28674 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUTHU LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE SARAVANA BHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, M/S. LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INVESTIGATION BRANCH, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT), DEPARTMENTAL OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEW “C” BLOCK, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPP.MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM - 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 689 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28674/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 1/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 10/10/2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.CR.42/07-08/B2/IO (IB) H/TVM DTD. 11/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT NOTICE NO.CR 41 & 42/07-08 (23) DTD.14/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ONE OF THE PERSONS NAMELY J.VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 28674 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to appellate orders, the 1st respondent took steps to summon 32 persons in respect of the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application seeking permission to be present with an advocate at the time of examination of the witnesses. By Ext.P4, one of the witnesses was directed to be present on 29.10.2011 for examination at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking two reliefs. The first is that the petitioner may be permitted to be present with an advocate at the time of examination. The second is that the examination may be at Kollam instead of Thiruvananthapuram. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am not inclined to allow the request of the petitioner to conduct examination at Kollam insofar as in Ext.P4 the 1st respondent has specifically stated that the 1st respondent has no office at Kollam. However, I direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to be present along with her advocate at the time of examination of the witnesses. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge - : 2 :-