IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36877 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.KAY CEE DISTILLERIES, CHENGALOOR, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, A REGD.PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.C.PREMAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.MALU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CENTRAL ZONE, KOCHI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. KR. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36877 OF 2009 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the request of the petitioner for reducing the strength of Supervisory Staff of the Excise Department deputed to their distillery. On an earlier occasion petitioner made a request which was rejected by Ext.P5 order. That order was called in question before this court in WP(c). No.29768/2006. Considering the materials that were made available by the petitioner, Ext.P5 order was upheld by this court in Ext.P8 judgment. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to move the authorities if the request could be justified with materials and having regard to the circumstances prevailing. Apparently in pursuance to the liberty so given, petitioner has filed Ext.P9 representation, producing Exts.P10 to P12. The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that the said representation was not considered by the 2nd respondent. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the representation was made, producing Exts.P10 to P12, there is no reason why the same shall WPC.No.36877 /09 :2 : not be considered. 3. Having regard to the above, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 in the light of Exts.P10, P11 and P12, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/