SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DHANESH KUMAR PAYINGATTU – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RANJITH C., SRI.V.GANGADHARAN, SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY, SMT.SHINY GEORGE MEKKATTUKULAM, SMT.SEBI S. RAJ, SHRI.BINJO ANDREWS, SHRI.JOSBIN THOMAS, SHRI.LIBIN P. P.
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

a) “To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to take up Ext-P3 application submitted by the Petitioner, consider it and pass appropriate orders on the same within a short span of time as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the interest of justice.

b) To pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

c) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” [sic]

2. The Government Pleader submitted that, as per the online status, the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner is already rejected. If that is the case, no further direction is necessary. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he is free to challenge the same, in accordance with law.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top