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) 51969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SADANANDAN KAMBALATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43805 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The court established the necessity for timely consideration of applications under specific environmental legislation.

Headnote:This Writ Petition is filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, seeking a direction for timely consideration of a Form 6 application. The court directed the 3rd respondent to submit a report to the 2nd respondent regarding the application within one month and ordered that the 2nd respondent considers the application based on that report within three months, free to pass orders as per law. The court emphasizes the speedy resolution and adherence to statutory provisions.

Table of Content
1. application filed under specific act (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel presentations heard (Para 3)
3. court's directive on application consideration (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the Ext.P2, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

ii) Such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstance of the case and award costs."

[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 3rd 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 report received from the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 21.11.2025
Judgment dictated 21.11.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 21.11.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 21.11.2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43805/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.

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