Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JOBY GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 21397 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.N.M.VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SRI.N.B SUNIL NATH
The court mandates timely decision-making on administrative applications and ensures opportunity for hearing.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitioner sought an assignment of his house plot based on various Government Orders as indicated in application Ext.P5. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, Joby George, applied for this assignment on 01.06.2023 but has not received a decision.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 and issue orders within three months.
Issues: The main issue is the delay in processing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the applicant must be given a chance to be heard before any orders are made.
Result: The court directed the 3rd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 expeditiously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requested assignment of a house plot. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel for both sides presented before the court. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directed a decision on the application within three months. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application seeking assignment of his house plot with reference to various Government Orders. The petitioner’s grievance is that, in spite of submitting the afore application as early as on 01.06.2023, a decision is not being taken on this application.
2. Heard Sri. N. M. Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. N.B Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.
3. Having considered the submissions made across the Bar as well as the averments in the writ petition, this writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent herein to take note of Ext.P5 and to pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say, the petitioner is to be granted an opportunity of being heard before passing orders. It is further directed that till a decision as above is taken, no further coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
SD/-
