JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 3^rd Respondent to call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and quash the same;

ii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

iii) To grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.”[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 5^th respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the 1^st petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 authorised officer has directly inspected the propert