Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
AYISHA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) – Respondent
| 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 fro
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
