Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
HARIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks mandamus for application consideration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's counsel satisfied with a timely direction. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directs proper timeframe for processing application. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" (i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order compelling the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit.P2 application, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court ;
(ii) issue such other writ, direction or order as is deemed just and necessary in the facts, features and circumstances of the case.
(iii) pleased to dispense with the translation of documents produced in vernacular language."
[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 fra
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
