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) 14392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DR. SANDHYA N – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6939 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS, SRI.JOEMON ANTONY, SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN, SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO, SMT.ANJANA P.V.
For the Respondents: SMT. DEEPA V - GP

The Court enforces statutory obligations for timely decision-making under environmental conservation laws.

Headnote:This Writ Petition

(C) seeks reliefs including a writ of mandamus to the 5th Respondent to file a report regarding Ext.P2 application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The Court directed that the report must be submitted within one month, followed by the 3rd Respondent considering the application based on the report within four months. The Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Table of Content
1. seeking relief for timely processing of application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's directive for prompt action on pending matters. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 5th Respondent to file report and complete the proceedings in connection with Exhibit P2 within a time frame.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 3rd Respondent to complete the process in Exhibit.P2 application (Form 6) on the basis of obtaining all necessary inputs within a time frame.

iv) This Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.

v) Provide cost of the proceedings."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P2 Form - 6 application filed by the petitioner under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules , 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).

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 within a time frame.

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

1. The 5th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 3rd respondent/Authorised O period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 3rd respondent/Authorised O to consider the Ext.P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 3rd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 3rd and 5th respondents 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