The Court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness in evaluating environmental conservation applications.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order and quash the same.

ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to first respondent to allow the application under Form No. 5 of the Act, 2008 as evidenced by Ext.P5 order or allow Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner.

iii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider application submitted under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the KSREC report, site inspection and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a reasonable time.

iv. such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.

v. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition. (SIC)

2. Petitioner purchased a property from one Binu C.P.

The petitioner’s predecessor filed a Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and the same was rejected as per Ext.P5. After purchasing the property, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 Form-5 application. Now Ext.P3 application is not considered stating that the application of the predecessor of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P5.

Hence this writ petition.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P5, which is not a speaking order. The authorised officer who passed Ext.P5 order blindly relied on the report of the Agricultural Officer. This Court, in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ] observed the manner in which a Form-5 application is to be considered. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P5 is to be set aside and there can be a direction to the authorised officer to consider Ext.P3 application now filed by the petitioner within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P5 is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P3 application to the 1^st respondent/Authorised O expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 1^st respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P3 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 2^nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before respondents 1 and

2 for compliance.