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) 6379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
UMMER BAVA – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3326 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K, SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N, SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE, SMT.A.A.AMRITHA SREELAKSHMI
For the Respondents: VIDYA KURIAKOSE SR.GP

Courts can mandate timely action from administrative bodies on applications pending consideration.

Headnote:The court considered a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing a respondent to finalize an application in accordance with the law. The petitioner requested time-bound considerations for the application. The court ordered the second respondent to submit a report within a month and the first respondent to act on it within four months. The court emphasized expediency in issuing directives to ensure compliance.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's prayer is seeking timely consideration of an application. (Para 1)
2. respondent must act upon the application as suggested. (Para 2)
3. court ordered expedient actions for compliance. (Para 3 , 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 to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P2 application in accordance with law within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To dispense with production of the translation of documents in vernacular language;

And (iii) Issue any such other writ order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice."

[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 2nd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 1st 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 1st respondent/Authorised O consider Ext.P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 2nd 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 2nd respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ

Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 30.01.2026
Judgment dictated 30.01.2026
Draft judgment placed 31.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 02.02.2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit - P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED

02/09/2025 Exhibit - P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

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