IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32587 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BEENA ROY, ST. THOMAS RUBBER INDUSTRIES VELLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BABY KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED. 3. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 23.1.2009 IN WPC.32587/2008. ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 32587 of 2008 & I.A. 392 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, Thiruvananthapuram is impleaded as additional third respondent. 2. Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 3. I.A. 392 of 2009 is filed by the additional third respondent. It is pointed out by both the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel that this is a case where the petitioner has produced forged document in the form of a certificate from the third respondent. As far as I.A. 392 of 2009 is concerned, I would think that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (AIR 2005 SC 2119) it may not be necessary for me to grant sanction and I also take note of the fact that a complaint has been lodged and an FIR has been registered and investigation is proceeding and in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances and without prejudice to the investigation, which is already launched in the matter, the I.A is rejected. 4. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to WPC.32587/2008. 2 the first respondent and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the additional third respondent within a period of two weeks from today. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb