P.S. Gopinathan, J.

The writ appeal is preferred by respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition against an order extending the interim order granted in favour of the first respondent, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, after declining the request of the appellants to hear the writ petition and to vacate the interim order. (Hereinafter, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The documents are also referred to as produced in the writ petition).

2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition is as follows: Ext.P1 FL-3 licence was granted in favour of one P.J. Paul on 21.2.1984 for the following financial year. It was renewed from year to year. For the year 1994-95 it was transferred in favour of one P.J. Ajay Ghosh, managing partner of a hotel. Thereafter, it was transferred to the petitioner firm in the name of V.K. Ashokan, the then managing partner. While so, Sri. E. Satheeshkumar, the husband of the 5th respondent and father of the 6th respondent was inducted as a partner of the firm. Satheeshkumar met with an accident on 25.6.2004 and succumbed to the injuries. The remaining partners, on the death of Satheeshkumar, re-constituted the firm after obtaining sanction under rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. In support of the application for sanction to re-constitute the firm, a declaration said to have been signed by the 5th respondent was produced by the petitioner and the authorities accepted it. According to the 5th and 6th respondents, no such declaration was given and that the document produced is a forged one. A copy of the said declaration is produced by respondents 5 and 6 as Ext.R5 (a) along with the petition seeking impleading them as additional 5th and 6th respondents. However, the Deputy Commissioner accepted Ext.R5(a) and based on it sanction was accorded to reconstitute the firm. Consequently, Ext.P1 licence was further renewed. While so, respondents 5 and 6 preferred a writ petition as W.P.(C) 8577 of 2007 seeking a declaration that Ext.R5(a) is a fraudulent document and that re-constitution of the firm as well as renewal of licence basing upon Ext.R5(a) is bad and not sustainable. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by Ext.P7 judgment dated 29.3.2007 with the reasoning that there was delay and the dispute is an issue of fact and requires to be decided on the basis of evidence. Though they preferred appeal as W.A.1067/2007 they were not successful. Ext.P8 is the judgment in appeal. Their review petition as R.P. 1031/2009 was also dismissed by Ext.P9 order. The third respondent had been renewing the F.L-3 licence annually treating Ext.R5(a) as a genuine document. It appears that respondent No.5 alleged criminal misconduct and other offences under the Indian Penal Code against the then Circle Inspector of Excise as well as against the other partners and a complaint was lodged before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB). The VACB made a preliminary enquiry wherein it was revealed that Ext.R5(a) declaration was forged by the surviving partners with the connivance of the then Excise Circle Inspector. The document was seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. On forensic examination, it was scientifically revealed that it is a forged document. Consequently, a case was registered as Crime No. VC 20/2009 of the VACB, Thrissur, alleging offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120 (B) IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the two partners, the mother-in-law of the 5th respondent and one T.V. Raphel, the then Excise Circle Inspector. The copy of the First Information report is produced as Ext.R5(c). When, the petitioner sought for renewal of Ext.P1 licence for the year 2010-11, the third respondent having received the report from the forensic laboratory, by Ext.P6 order dated 20.3.2010, declined to renew the licence. Following the case registered, Circle Inspector Raphel was suspended from