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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
R.L MEENAGANAPATHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent or any other officer concerned to consider and dispose of Ext-P2 application pending before him, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P2 Form - 6 application filed by the petitioner under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules , 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P2 within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 5th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 2nd respondent/Authorised O period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 2nd respondent/Authorised O to consider the Ext.P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top