Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
GEORGE CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the context and purpose of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of arguments presented by the parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. assessment of the authorized officer's failure to follow legal procedures. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,order,or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Exhibit P4 form 5 application in the light of Exhibit P6 and P7 . c) Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case “ [sic]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This C
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
