SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PHILIP CHACKO M – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3404 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS, SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S, SMT.B.SHAMEERA, SMT.NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN
For the Respondents: SMT. DEEPA V., GP

The directive for timely processing of administrative applications is essential for efficient governance.

Headnote:The court addressed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to consider a Form 5 application. The petitioner expressed satisfaction with a directive for timely consideration. The court decided to direct the Authorised Officer to evaluate the application based on reports within specified deadlines. The final outcome specifies compliance requirements.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed for timely consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. submission of timely directives. (Para 3)
3. ordered compliance with report timelines. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, or direction directing the 1st respondent or any o authorised under the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext. P3 Form 5 application as expeditiously as possible within a time period fixed by this Hon’ble Court; ii) Dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;

iii) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and 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 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.P3 application within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 4th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P3 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 O directed to consider Ext. P3 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four 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 4th respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top