Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL RAHIMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 45548 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JACOB E SIMON, SMT.GAYATHRI RAJAGOPAL, SHRI.SRINATH C.V.
For the Respondents: GP SMT DEEPA V
The court mandates timely administrative action on a pending application following procedural fairness.
Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks a writ of mandamus to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application for removing property entries. The court directs the third respondent to report on the application expeditiously and for the first respondent to act upon it within designated timeframes. The petitioner is instructed to submit certified copies upon compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking writ mandamus for administrative action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court orders timely consideration of applications. (Para 4) |
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 45548 OF 2025 ------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2025 JUDGMENT The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
“i) Issue a of writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to consider the Ext.P2 application of the petitioner and remove the entry of petitioner's property from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.
ii) Dispense with filing of the translation of documents in Malayalam produced in the above writ petition.
iii) Pass such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.”(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.P2 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.P2 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.P2 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised Officer, as 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 Officer is directed to consider 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.
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/-
