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) 14378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ZAKEER P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6547 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MUDASSER AHAMED, SHRI.MUNEER AHMED, SMT.ABHIRAMI RAJAN
For the Respondents: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE SR.GP

The court mandates timely consideration of administrative applications to ensure due process and expedient administration.

Headnote:The writ petition seeks a mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application to remove his property from the Data Bank. The petitioner was satisfied with a direction for a timely consideration of the application. The Court determined that the third respondent must report on the application within one month, and the second respondent must consider it within four months thereafter. The outcome is that the application will be processed as dictated.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks timely action on application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs government to expedite process. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P2, seeking removal of the petitioner's property having an extent of 40.47 Sq. Meters in Survey Sub Division No. 978/58 from the Data Bank as expeditiously as possible, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

ii. Grant such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P2 Form – 5 application within a time frame.

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.P2 application within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 3rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 2nd respondent/Authorised O expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 2nd respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the report.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 24.02.2026
Judgment dictated 24.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 25.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 27.02.2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6547 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2025-2026 BEARING NO. KL11011503426/2025 DATED 19.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO.

25/2025/57978 DATED 31.12.2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.

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