Vinod Chandran, J

Read order dated 29.6.2018.

“Personal appearance dispensed

with.

2. We have talked to the first

petitioner, who has admitted that the

third petitioner had not signed the

Vakkalath or in the writ petition and

another person, who was working with

the first petitioner, was brought to the

office of the Advocate for the purpose

of signing as the third petitioner.

3. We also interacted with the

second petitioner, who submits that he

had gone to the office of the Advocate

and signed in the Vakkalath and in the

Writ Petition and the first petitioner

was present, but however, the third

petitioner was not present. First and

second petitioners shall file an

affidavit explaining the circumstances

in which this Writ Petition was filed,

within a period of one week.

4. In the circumstances of the

submissions made by the first and

second petitioners, we are of the

opinion that we need not interact with

WP(C).No.7193 of 2018 4

the third petitioner, and we allow the

petition (IA No.10465 of 2018) filed

by the third petitioner to remove him

from the party array.

List after one week as per roster.”

2. We are not happy with the manner in which the

writ petition was filed especially forging the signature of

one of the petitioners. The fraudulent act was noticed

when the 3^rd respondent appeared and stated so, which

was confirmed by the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners. There was

an application filed for withdrawal by the 3^rd respondent,

which was allowed. The writ petition itself was for

providing adequate police protection to the life of the

petitioners, who as of now are only 1^st and 2^nd

respondents. The apprehension of such threat is also

raised on the basis of certain allegations raised against

the 3^rd respondent. We do not say anything on the

allegations raised which is now the subject matter of a

criminal case. But however, considering the fact that the

1^st petitioner had admitted to have made another

person sign the vakkalath on behalf of the 3^rd petitioner,

we are of the opinion that writ petition cannot be

WP(C).No.7193 of 2018 5

entertained. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order on

costs.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

V.G.ARUN,

JUDGE

cms xxx

WP(C).No.7193 of 2018 6

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT-P1:

THE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1008/2017 OF

KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT-P2:

THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF

THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON RECEIVING THE

REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE

PETITIONERS DATED 08.02.2018.

EXHIBIT-P3:

THE COPY OF THE MESSAGE SENT TO THE

2ND PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

MESSENGER APP.

RESPONDENTS EXTS

EXT R3(a) COPY OF OFFICER LETTER ISSUED BY THE DOOR SEC

SECURITY SERVICES LLC TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 21.6.2016.

cms /True copy/ P.S.to Judge