Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MUHAMMED HANEEFA – Appellant
Versus
SUB COLLECTOR PERINTHALMANNA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's grievance over lack of consideration in rejected application. (Para 2) |
| 2. court hears arguments from both sides regarding procedural compliance. (Para 3) |
| 3. court finds statutory non-compliance and lack of independent findings. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 order and quash the same.
ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to first respondent to allow the Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008. OR a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the Ext.P2 & P3 building permits and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
iii. such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.
iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition” [SIC]
2. The petition
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
