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) 6392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BEERANKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3570 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS, SHRI.JOSEPH THEKKEKURUVANAL
For the Respondents: VIDYA KURIAKOSE SR.GP

Judicial review is warranted to ensure timely administrative action in resolving pending applications as per legal provisions.

Headnote:This Writ Petition calls for mandamus regarding the timely consideration of an application pursuant to Exhibit-P1, and the court directs the third respondent to expedite the inquiry and address the application. The issues pertain to procedural expediency and adherence to statutory time frames. The court emphasizes the necessity of compliance within specified timelines to facilitate efficient resolution of administrative matters.

Table of Content
1. petition filed regarding application consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears counsel and decides direction. (Para 3)
3. court disposes case with formal directions. (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 3rd respondent to conduct expeditious inquiry and to dispose of Exhibit -P1 Application, within a time limit to be specified by this honourable court.

ii. Pass an order to dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced in the above case.

iii. Grant any other Writ, Order, or direction as deemed 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.P1 Form – 7 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.P1 application within a time frame.

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

1. The respondents 5 and 6 are directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P1 application to the 3rd 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 3rd respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext. P1 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the respondents 5 and 6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three 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 respondents 3, 5 and 6 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 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO

7 BEARING NO. 1/2025/249757 DATED 16-04-

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