JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P6 order and quash the original of the same.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P3 application and pass orders afresh. '

iii To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the 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 her 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 rep