The requirement for obtaining necessary expert reports before administrative decision-making is affirmed, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has submitted an application in Form 5 (Ext.P3) under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008, seeking removal of the property mentioned therein from the data bank. By Ext.P5 order, the 3^rd respondent herein has sought to reject the aforementioned application, on account of which the petitioner is before this Court through this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. A reading of Ext.P4 would show that the impugned order at Ext.P5 has been issued on the basis of a report obtained from the agricultural office. However, the respondents do not seem to have obtained any report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) before issuing an order in the nature of one at Ext.P5. Insofar as the petitioner sought for removal of the property in question from the data bank, the issue ought to have been addressed with reference to the report obtained from the KSREC. Though the learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the Local Level Monitoring Committee has not supported the removal of the property from the data bank, insofar as the views of the KSREC have not been obtained, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration.

4. In such circumstances, the writ petition would stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P5 and directing the 3^rd respondent or the competent authority to pass fresh orders on the application filed by the petitioner after obtaining a report of the KSREC, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

5. Needless to say, the petitioner is to remit the fee for obtaining the report from the KSREC as above.

Sd/-