Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society engaged in sale and distribution of milk. It applied for permission before the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of the land having an extent of 5.1835 cents in Re-survey No.49/1 of the Thalakulathur Village, Edakkara desom in Kozhikode District for the purpose of constructing a building. The above land is coming under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner made a request in terms of Section 5 (3) (i) of the Act read with Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") framed thereunder before the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The Local Level Monitoring Committee recommended for reclamation of the paddy land on the ground of 'public purpose'. As per the provisions under the relevant Act and Rules, the above aspect has to be scrutinised by the State Level Committee in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act for the purpose of forwarding the same for taking a decision by the Government. It appears that instead of forwarding the recommendation to the State Level Committee, the Local Level Monitoring Committee forwarded the recommendation to the District Level Authorised Committee which, in turn, forwarded the same to the State Level Committee, of which the third respondent is the Convener. It appears that the State Level Committee did not recommend for conversion of the land. Based on the report received from the State Level Committee, the Government, as per Ext.P11, passed an order rejecting the petitioner's request. It is challenging Ext.P11, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out to Section 8(3) of the Act, which provides as follows: "The State Level Committee shall scrutinize each application recommended by the Local Level Monitoring Committee for filling up or reclamation of paddy land for public purpose and shall examine in detail whether any alternate land, other than paddy land, is available in that area and the ecological changes that may occur due to such filling up of paddy land and submit a report to Government." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the State Level Committee has no power to sit upon the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The learned counsel further submits that the power with the State Level Committee is only to scrutinize each application recommended by the Local Level Monitoring Committee for filling up or reclaiming paddy land for public purpose. 5. I have gone through the above provision. I am of the view, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the State Level Committee has no power to sit upon the recommendation made by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The power that is vested with the State Level Committee is only to scrutinize and to examine in detail whether any alternate land, other than paddy land, is available in that area and also to report about the changes that may occur due to such filling up of paddy land. Therefore, going by the power given to the State Level Committee under Section 8(3) of the Act. It is clear that the State Level Committee only has the duty to report to the Government regarding the matters mentioned in the above provision, that means, they have no power even to make a recommendation to nullify a recommendation. 6. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view, Ext.P11 order passed by the Government relying on the recommendation received from the State Level Committee, is illegal and unsustainable. The power available to the Government under Section 10 of the Act also fortify the above view. It is apposite to quote sub-section (2) of Section 10 in this context, which reads as follows: "No exemption under sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Government unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended the conversion or reclamation and the Government are satisfied on the basis of the report submitted by the State Level Committee, that no alternate land is available and such conversion or reclamation shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy in the adjoining paddy land and also the ecological conditions in that area." 7. It makes clear that the power for recommendation is with the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The duty vested with the State Level Committee as is evident from the above provision is that its power is only to report alternative land or about ecological conditions. It makes clear that the power for recommendation is with the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The duty vested with the State Level Committee as is evident from the above provision is that its power is only to report alternative land or about ecological conditions. Therefore, Ext.P11 is liable to be set aside. In the result, Ext.P11 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the third respondent, the Convener of the State Level Committee to report about the factors mentioned in Section 8(3) of the Act to the Government. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the report from the State Level Committee along with the recommendation of Local Level Monitoring Committee, the first respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a further period of four weeks. The writ petition is disposed of as above.