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) 52262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
AYISHA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43849 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.SUJAI SATHIAN, SMT.PREETHI. P.V., SMT.MARY LIYA SABU, SMT.AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN, SHRI.NEERAJ KRISHNA KUMAR, SHRI.ARAVIND K.
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

Administrative law requires timely action on applications, ensuring principles of justice are upheld.

Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks a writ of mandamus for the expeditious consideration of Ext.P5 application. The court directed the 3rd respondent to submit a report within one month and the 1st respondent to consider the application within three months based on this report. The outcome emphasizes timely administrative action as per legal requests.

Table of Content
1. petition requests for consideration of filed application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing involves both sides represented. (Para 3)
3. court directs timeline for administrative actions. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent for the expeditious consideration of Ext.P5 application and a time bound adjudication on the matter.

[SIC]

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P5 Form – 5 application within a time frame.

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.P5 application 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.P5 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised O expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 1st respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P5 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.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 1st 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 22.11.2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43849/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOC NO.936/1988 DATED

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