SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SAROJINI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35005 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
For the Respondents: SR PP, SRI HRITHWIK C S

The court directed the authority to consider a complaint without assessing its merits, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.

Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint. The court found it appropriate to direct the second respondent to examine Ext.P1 complaint and report back within one month. The court did not assess the merits of the complaint but emphasized compliance with the law.

Table of Content
1. prayer for direction to consider a complaint. (Para 2)
2. court directs examination of complaint. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P1 complaint submitted by the petitioner within a time limit as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit to fix.

b) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to look into Ext.P1 complaint within a time frame.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into Ext.P1 complaint and do the needful in accordance with the law and communicate the decision taken in it to the petitioner within a time frame. But I make it clear that, I have not considered the contentions of the petitioner or the merit or the maintainability of Ext.P1 complaint. The 2nd respondent is free to do the needful in accordance with the law.

Therefore this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

(i) The 2nd respondent is directed to look into Ext.P1 complaint and do the needful in accordance with the law and communicate the decision taken in it to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(ii) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top