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) 12685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SUDHAKARAN K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6276 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE, SMT.AVILA VICTORIA, SHRI.JOEL LIJU FRANCIS
For the Respondents: GP, SMT DEEPA V

The court emphasizes the necessity to process applications under applicable statutes within stipulated timeframes to ensure administrative efficacy.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks reliefs including a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to process an application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The court mandates the third respondent to process the application based on a report from the fifth respondent within specified timelines. The petitioner is required to submit a certified copy of the judgment for compliance.

Table of Content
1. writ petition seeks processing of application under the act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears both parties' counsel. (Para 3)
3. court directs action within specified timeframes. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to process Exhibit P3, the application in Form 6, within a specified time.

ii) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced along with the writ petition.

iii) Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P3 Form-6 application filed by the petitioner under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).

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 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 Ext.P3 Form-6 application to the 3rd respondent / Authorised Officer 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 Form-6 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 four months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 3rd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

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 nvj

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 19.02.2026
Judgment dictated 19.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 20.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 23 .02.2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6276 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 11-6-

2025 IN WP © 33279 OF 20204 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO: 2340/2025 DATED 09/1/2026ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM

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