JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

" i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit.P4 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order compelling the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Exhibit.P3 application, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorized of