Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DAVIS MANNATH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the writ petition and application context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion of arguments heard from both sides. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on previous judgments and necessity for reconsideration. (Para 4) |
| 4. final ruling and directions for reconsideration. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 order and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext. P2 application and pass orders afresh taking note of Ext P6 KSREC report.
iii) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner filed a Form – 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity) as evident by Ext.P2. The same was rejected as per Ext.P3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19048 of 2023. This Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment, set aside
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
