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) 14110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
AKHILA KERALA TRINAMOOL PARTY – Appellant
Versus
THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA NO. 520 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.46288 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.VINOD RAJKUMAR, SHRI.P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI, SRI.M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL), SMT.P.K.DIVYA
For the Respondents: SRI. M AJAY, SC, SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP

The appellate court dismissed the writ appeal as infructuous, allowing the appellant to seek further relief against the appellate order.

Headnote:Analysis of the judgment reveals that the appeal challenges the order issued under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, derived from a writ petition seeking timely resolution on an appeal. The court found the appeal infructuous as the order had already been addressed. Key issues framed focus on the necessity of formal orders and adherence to deadlines. The court underscored that the appellant can pursue further appeals against decisions made.

Table of Content
1. writ appeal filed under section 5 concerning timely order on appeal. (Para 1)
2. appellate decision rendered as infructuous. (Para 2)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present writ appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 challenging the judgment dated 05.01.2026 whereby the writ petition was disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. According to the prayer clause in the writ petition, there was a prayer with regard to calling of the records, and the 2nd prayer was to dispose of the appeal pending before the competent authority within a time frame. The appeal has already been decided by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A1 order dated 02.02.2026. In the writ petition, the order under challenge is Ext.P14 against which the appeal was preferred. Now the appeal has been decided, and thereby the order Ext.P14 stands merged with the appellate order.

Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ appeal, the same is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. However, the appellant would be at liberty to assail the appellate order, if so advised.

Sd/-

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