Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
C G AUGUSTINE JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5764 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHIBIN K.F., SHRI.JOHN T. SEBASTIAN, SHRI.MATHEWS K. CHERIAN, SMT.SAFEELA NASRIN, SMT.ANUSREE TELFY C.
For the Respondents: GP SMT DEEPA V
Court mandates timely administrative response to petitions, ensuring proper governmental procedures are followed.
Headnote:The judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus for the timely consideration of an application submitted by the petitioner. The court directed the relevant respondents to consider the application within specified timeframes and submit necessary reports. Main findings outline the urgency in addressing the petitioner's request as articulated in Ext.P2 application. The primary issues presented the need for expedient action in response to the petitioner's application. The court framed the necessity of time-bound decisions by the respondents, reiterating the importance of administrative diligence. In conclusion, the 5th respondent was ordered to submit a report within one month, and the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the application within three months following the report's receipt.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the writ petition's purpose. (Para 1) |
| 2. request for a timely directive on the application. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's decision for timely administrative action. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction and/or to pass any Order or Judgment commanding the 3rd to 6th Respondents to submit necessary reports to the 1st or the 2nd Respondent enabling earlier disposal of the Exhibit-P2 Application and also direct the 1st or the 2nd Respondent, to whom such reports are submitted, to take a decision on the Exhibit-P2 Application of the Petitioner within a time to be fixed by this Honourable Court ii. To dispense with the English translation of the documents in vernacular language.
iii. To pass such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to pass in the interest of equity, justice and good conscious to the humble petitioner herein.
(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 5th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 2nd 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 2nd respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P2 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 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 respondents 2 and
5 for compliance.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE JV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 5764 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
Judgment reserved
NA
Date of Judgment
19.02.2026
Judgment dictated
19.02.2026
Draft Judgment placed
20.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded
21.02.2026
3550/2004 IN THE RECORDS OF THE MEENACHIL SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE AND DATED
