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) 6382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Rasiya Nisar – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3362 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.H.Nujumudeen, Sri.Antony Shyju, Sri.E.B.Shaju, Shri.Navas Harid, Smt.Simi M Jacob, Smt.Sherin Achu Ninan, Smt.Adhira Saliha N.P.
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose Sr.GP

Timeliness of administrative decisions regarding applications is crucial for ensuring justice.

Headnote:The Writ Petition

(C) seeks a mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the Exhibit P2 application expeditiously. The court found it appropriate to direct consideration of Ext.P3 application within a specified time frame. The petitioner's request for timely processing of applications was prioritized for justice.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's application needs timely consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court heard both sides regarding the application. (Para 3)
3. court orders specific time frames for administrative response. (Para 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, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Exhibit P2 application numbered 1/2024/1151885 filed by the petitioner and pending consideration of the 1st respondent, expeditiously in the interest of justice and preferably within a time frame fixed by the Hon’ble High Court to meet the ends of justice.

ii. The petitioner is ready to submit a vernacular translation of all Exhibits if directed by this Hon’ble Court at any time.

iii. To pass any such other orders that the Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[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.P3 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.P3 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.P3 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 to consider Ext.P3 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 two 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 3rd respondents for compliance.

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