IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PATHUMMA – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“i) To call for the records relating to Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent and to quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ;
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on the Ext.P6 FORM-6 request of the petitioner in the interest of justice;
iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.
iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
(SIC)
2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 order in this writ petition. Ext.P8 is an order passed in a Form-6 application filed by the petitioner in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. Admittedly, it is an appealable order.
Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
3. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to file an appeal and there may be a direction to consider the same.
I think, that prayer can be allowed.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.