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) 5802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RAMSHAD K M KUTTIAMAKKANAKATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2888 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SIDHARTH O., SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI, SHRI.ALBIN A. JOSEPH, SHRI.SHANAVAS P., SMT.NEKHA VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SMT DEEPA V

Timely processing of administrative applications by authorities is mandated by the court to ensure justice.

Headnote:The writ petition seeks mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to process the petitioner's application. The court directs the 3rd respondent to report promptly and the 2nd respondent to consider the application within specified timelines. The court emphasizes the necessity of expediting the proceedings in accordance with the petitioner's rights.

Table of Content
1. judgment disposes the matter with directives. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court emphasizes timeliness in application processing. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith take up Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, process the same and pass orders on the same at the earliest at any rate within a time frame stipulated by this Honorable court and thus secure ends of justice to the petitioner.

(ii) Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of the writ petition (civil) from the respondents (iii) Dispense with production of English translation of vernacular documents."

[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 3rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext. P2 application to the 2nd 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 2nd respondent/Authorised O directed to consider Ext. P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 3rd 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 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SPV

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 28.01.2026
Judgment dictated 28.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 28.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2888 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED

06.01.2025 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 17.12.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE

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