Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHAHIDA – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners sought timely considerations for their applications. (Para 1) |
| 2. court determined satisfaction with directed actions regarding application. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observation on hearing both sides. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's directive for expeditious compliance with application. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to 1st respondent/officer concerned to consider and pass order on Ext.P3 application within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents to submit a report to the 1st respondent within a time frame fixed by the Hon’ble Court.
Iii. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.
iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the 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. P3 Form – 5 application within a time fram
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
