JUDGMENT : Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal. 2. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Ms. Yadav wives notice on behalf of contesting Respondent–DRI i.e. Respondent No.2 against whom the relief is sought. 3. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No.2–DRI to permit the Petitioner to attend the proceedings in question before the DRI in his advocate’s presence i.e. the advocate would be at a visible distance, but not audible distance, during the course of his interrogation by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner also prays that videography of the Petitioner’s interrogation be permitted, at Petitioner’s cost. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1st February 2022 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6558 of 2021, as well as the Judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.3909 of 2022. He submits that the prosecution against the Petitioner is under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the Petitioner has been issued summons to attend the office of the DRI in connection with the same. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is ready to attend the office of the DRI, any time as and when summoned by the Respondent No.1–DRI. Statement accepted. 5. Ms. Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposes the Petition. 6. We have perused the Judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6558 of 2021 (Coram : R.D. Dhanuka and S.M. Modak, JJ.), as well as the Judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3909 of 2023, passed by us (Coram : Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.). Considering the prayers made in the Petition, we do not find any impediment in permitting the Petitioner’s advocate to remain present when the Petitioner is summoned for interrogation by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner’s advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance. We also permit videography of the said interrogation, however, at the cost of the Petitioner. 7. The Petitioner’s advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance. We also permit videography of the said interrogation, however, at the cost of the Petitioner. 7. We make it clear that if the Petitioner’s advocate is unable to remain present or if the person videographing is not present, that will not be a ground for the Petitioner, not to remain present, before the Respondent No.2–DRI, when summoned. 8. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and is accordingly disposed of. 9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Judgment.