JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,order,or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Exhibit P4 form 5 application in the light of Exhibit P6 and P7 . c) Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case “ [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