Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ADHARSH K.K – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks timely consideration of applications. (Para 2) |
| 2. counsel's argument stresses the urgency. (Para 3) |
| 3. court orders expedited processing of applications. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
"a) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions the second respondent to consider the Exhibit P3 series Form- 5 application submitted by the petitioner in a fixed time limit as this Hon’ble Court please.
[SIC]
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
2. The 3rd respondent/Authorised O to consider Exts.P3 to P3(94) Form – 5 applications (if they are pending and if they are in order) based on the report received from the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report.
4. I make it clear that, if in any of the Form-5 applications the report from the Agricultural Officer is already received, the Authorised Officer will process the same forthwith.
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
