Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

The judgment dated 15.7.2014 passed in W.P(C). No. 22397 of 2013 is called in question in this writ appeal by the State. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P11 order passed by the State Government and a direction was issued to the Agriculture Production Commissioner (the Convener of State Level Committee) to report about the factors mentioned in Section 8(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to the Government. It is also observed that on receipt of the report of the State Level Committee, along with the recommendation of Local Level Committee, the State of Kerala shall consider the request of the petitioner, after affording it an opportunity of hearing.

While concluding so, the learned Single Judge has made it clear that the power for recommendation is with the Local Level Monitoring Committee and not with the State Level Committee.

The duty vested with the State Level Committee is to report alternative land or about ecological conditions.

2. The writ petitioner/respondent herein is a registered Co- operative Society engaged in the sale and distribution of milk. It applied for permission before the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of a land having an extent of 5.1835 cents in Re-survey No.49/1 of Thalakulathur Village, Edakkara Desom in Kozhikode District for the purpose of constructing a building for the society. The above land is coming under the Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('the Act' for short). A request was made by the writ petitioner under Section 5(3)(i) of the Act read with Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('the Rules' for short), before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for appropriate orders. The Local Level Monitoring Committee recommended for reclamation of the paddy land on the ground of 'public purpose'.

3. The Local Level Monitoring Committee observed that the ecological balance in the area will not be affected if paddy land is reclaimed. As per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, a State Level Committee is constituted for furnishing report to the Government, after detailed scrutiny of the applications recommended by the Local Level Monitoring Committee regarding filling up of the paddy land for public purpose or for construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land.

4. Section 8(3) of the Act clarifies that the State Level Committee shall scrutinse each application recommended by the Local Level Monitoring Committee for filling up or reclamation of paddy land for public purpose and shall examine in detail whether any alternate land, other than paddy land, is available in that area and the ecological changes that may occur due to such filling up of paddy land. After scrutinising the entire matter as required under section 8(3), the State Level Committee shall submit a report to the Government. Section 10 of the Act empowers the State Government to grant exemption in certain cases. Ultimately, the decision lies with the State Government inasmuch as the decision needs to be taken in accordance with law, by the State Government.

5. In the matter on hand, the Local Level Monitoring Committee, by Ext.P5 report, has recommended to the concerned that permission be granted for the society to construct its own building on the land in question for public purpose. Such recommendation made by the Local Level Monitoring Committee ought to be scrutinised by the State Level Committee by applying its mind and a report should have been sent to the State. Then, it is open for the Government to take a decision in the matter based on such report. The report of the State Level Committee is not placed before the Court. Ext.P11 dated 8.4.2013 is the order issued by the Government, based on the report of the State Level Committee and the same is challenged in the writ petition.

6. The order issued by the State Government (Ext.P11) states that the