JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P3 order and quash the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to reconsider petitioner’s Form 5 application and pass orders afresh taking note of Ext. P4 report from KSREC.

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

iv) 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 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 statut