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) 5703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
M.K. SOMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3292 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.R.S.KALKURA, SHRI.M.S.KALESH, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.H.KIRAN, SRI.P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN
For the Respondents: SRI S KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, SMT. DEEPA V., GP

Court directed timely consideration of representation concerning building assessments, maintaining status quo on coercive steps.

Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks a mandamus directing the 5th respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioners for the correction of the age of the buildings. The court found merit in the petitioners' request and directed the consideration of their representation within six weeks. Coercive actions based on earlier assessment notices will be paused pending this consideration.

Table of Content
1. writ petition involves petitioners seeking mandamus regarding building assessments. (Para 1)
2. petitioners satisfied if direction is issued for consideration of their representation. (Para 2)
3. court to permit consideration of representation regarding coercive actions. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

"I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent Panchayat Secretary to consider and dispose of the Exhibit P7 representation dated 03.12.2025 submitted by the petitioners seeking correction of the age of the buildings, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

II. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

III. Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in vernacular language."

[SIC]

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext. P7 representation by the 4th respondent, and till then coercive steps based on Exts.P2, P4 and P5 may be kept in abeyance.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think the prayer of the petitioners can be allowed.

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

1. The 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Till then coercive steps based on Exts.P2, P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance.

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