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) 14379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
HARIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6564 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.P.SANTHI
For the Respondents: SMT.DEEPA V

Court mandated timelines for considering applications in Writ Petitions.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to compel the 2nd respondent to consider his application. The court determined to direct timely consideration of the Ext.P2 application. The primary issues framed included whether the application should be considered expeditiously. The court concluded with a directive for the Authorised Officer to act on the application within a month and a further period for consideration of the application. The petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy for compliance.

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 frame.

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

1. The 4th 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.P4 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 4th 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 4th 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. 6564 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED

16-7-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16-7-

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