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) 6418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ALBIN THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41557 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.SUJIN
For the Respondents: SMT.DEEPA,V,GP

Timely administrative action on applications is mandated to ensure effective resolution.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a writ of Mandamus regarding the disposal of an application filed under Form 5. The court directed the 5th respondent to submit a report regarding the application to the 3rd respondent within a month, and for the 3rd respondent to act on this report and consider the application within two months of receipt. The proceedings highlighted the importance of timely administrative action in relation to the applicant's request, paving the way for effective resolution of pending applications.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks timely consideration of application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears both sides regarding application. (Para 3)
3. court directs immediate action on application. (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 order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext. P3 application in Form 5 submitted by petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

ii) Dispense with the translation of vernacular documents;

iii) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the 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 5th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext. P3 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 directed to consider Ext. P3 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 5th 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 3rd and 5th respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 30.01.2026
Judgment dictated 30.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 31.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 31.01.2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOC NO.679/2023 OF SRO SREEMOOLANAGARAM DATED

25/03/2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT 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