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) 5699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ANOOP TOMY THALIYATH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3155 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS, SRI.JOEMON ANTONY, SRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO, SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN, SMT.ANJANA P.V.
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The court mandates timely action in administrating applications under relevant procedures.

Headnote:This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions relating to the completion of proceedings concerning Exhibit P2. The petitioner requests that the 6th respondent submit a report based on Exhibit P2 to the 3rd respondent within a month and urges that the latter consider the application promptly. The court directed compliance with these timeframes. The result is that specific time frames were established for the changes required regarding respondent actions concerning the petitioner’s application.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks timely processing of application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs compliance with processing timelines. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

“i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext P2 application submitted by the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 6th Respondent to complete the proceedings in connection with Exhibit P2 within a time frame.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 2nd or 3rd Respondent to complete the process in Exhibit P2 application (Form 5) on the basis of obtaining all necessary inputs within a time frame.

iv) This Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language v) Provide cost of the proceedings”

[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 6th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext. P2 application to the 3rd respondent/Authorised O 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 3rd respondent/Authorised O consider Ext. P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 6th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month 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 3rd and 6th respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE GBG

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 29.01.2026
Judgment dictated 29.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 30.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 02.02.2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 08-06-2023 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07-02-

2023

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