IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
N.Prakash – Appellant
Versus
C.S.Shibu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandamus as a remedy for administrative inaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
On 29.03.2026 at 8.30 pm at Ayini Road, the petitioner noticed a passenger auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-39-T-6197 belonging to the 1st respondent carrying a large flex/banner mounted on its top. The flex extended beyond the permissible dimensions of the vehicle, posing serious safety risk to other road users. Though Ext.P2 representation was submitted to respondents 2 to 4 on 30.03.2026, no action is taken so far. Hence this writ petition.
2. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 5. In the nature of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the 1st responden
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.