P.N. Ravindran, J

1. The petitioner, a Minister in the Council of Ministers of the State of Kerala, and a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly representing the Kuttanad Assembly Constituency, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P2(a) report of the 3rd respondent; and the further proceedings initiated - pursuant to the extend it affects the petitioner; and to quash the same, considering it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2(a) report, forthwith,

(iii) Declare that the petitioner in his personal capacity cannot be proceeded against pertaining to the issues mentioned in Ext.P2(a) report; except in accordance with Sec.24 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008,

(iv) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restricting the visual and print media from unnecessary twisting and publishing/exhibiting news items pertaining to the matters under consideration of this Hon'ble Court, as it affects the petitioner's reputation, life and liberty under Art.21 of the Constitution of India,

(v) To grant such other reliefs sought from time to time including the cost of this proceeding."

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has joined the following persons as respondents 1 to 5:

1. The State of Kerala, rep: by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The District Collector, Alappuzha District.

4. Minor Irrigation Division, Thanneermukkom, Alappuzha, rep:by its Executive Engineer - 688527.

5. Principal Agriculture Officer, Collectorate, Alappuzha - 688005.

3. The main thrust of the arguments of Sri. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that without notice to the petitioner and behind his back, the District Collector, Alappuzha has in Ext.P2 (a) report dated 20.10.2017 sent by her to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, stated that he is the owner of the lands situated in Block No.81, Resurvey No. 36 and Block No.78, Resurvey No.10, which have been reclaimed in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. Learned Senior Counsel asserts that the petitioner is not the owner of the aforesaid parcels of land.

4. Learned Senior Counsel contends relying on Ext.P5, an order passed by the then District Collector, Alappuzha on 12.11.2014 that there are no adverse remarks therein about the petitioner or the Water World Tourism Company Private Limited. Learned Senior counsel invited our attention to the finding in Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector, Alappuzha under Section 13 of the Act, that there is no bona-fides in the complaint voiced by Sri. Jayaprasad in his complaint dated 27.10.2012, wherein it had been alleged that the said company has illegally reclaimed paddy land in violation of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel contends that as the petitioner has nothing to do with the lands alleged to be belonging to him, the District Collector acted illegally in naming him in Ext.P2(a) report without notice to him and behind his back. He contends that in the enquiry held under Section 13 of the Act, which led to Ext.P2(a) report, the District Collector, Alappuzha has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner has violated the Act and reclaimed paddy land.

5. It is clear from the materials on record that Ext.P2 report dated 22.9.2017 and Ext.P2(a) report dated 22.10.2017 were submitted by the District Collector, Alappuzha to the Revenue Secretary pursuant to