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) 14375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL SAMAD – Appellant
Versus
ANAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5371 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE
For the Respondents: VIDYA KURIAKOSE SR.GP

A writ petition does not interfere with administrative orders unless merit is evaluated, allowing for objections to be filed for consideration.

Headnote:This case involves a Writ Petition

(C) regarding a stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent. The Court determined that the stop memo does not require interference at this stage. The petitioner may submit objections, which the 2nd respondent must consider appropriately. Key issues include the petitioner's opportunity to be heard regarding the stop memo. The Court concluded that it is not addressing the merit at this stage and allows for submission of objections.

Table of Content
1. seeks judicial review of administrative action. (Para 1)
2. petitioner contends against issued stop memo. (Para 2)
3. court allows filing of objections for reconsideration. (Para 3)
4. court orders administrative hearing process after objection. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside Exhibit.P1 Stop Memo issued by the 2nd respondent.

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter reconsider Exhibit.P1 in accordance with law.

c. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 stop memo dated

10.07.2025. According to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P2 agreement, Ext.P1 stop memo will not stand.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. I am of the considered opinion that this Court need not interfere with Ext.P1 stop-memo dated 10.07.2025 in a writ petition filed on 10.02.2026. But, the petitioner can submit his objection to Ext.P1 stop-memo, and if such an objection is filed, there can be a direction to consider the same. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to file an objection. If that is the case, this writ petition can be disposed of.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Petitioner is free to submit his objection to Ext.P1 stop-memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

2. If such an objection is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the objection.

3. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit, and the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

4. Petitioner will produce a certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition with exhibits before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

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