Judgment :- The petitioner was granted licence to establish a Saw Mill in the year 2000. It was being renewed from time to time. The renewal fee is to be paid by 31st December of every year and with late fee of Rs.250/- up to the end of February of succeeding year. For the year 2004, the petitioner paid the renewal fee of Rs.1000/- with late fee of Rs.250/- on 26.03.2004 and submitted an application for renewal. No orders have been passed on the application. For the year 2005, the renewal fee was paid on 25.01.2005 with late fee of Rs.250/-. For this year also, no orders were passed, either granting or refusing renewal. For the year 2006, the petitioner paid the renewal fee on 31.12.2005 and filed an application. On 18.03.2006, the respondents seized the Saw Mill of the petitioner on the ground that there did not exist valid renewal for the year 2004. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents and seeks appropriate directions. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the last date for payment of licence fee with late fee is 20th December of the particular year and the petitioner failed to remit the licence fee even by 28.02.2004. According to the respondents, the licence of the petitioner lapsed by operation of Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') and the only course open to it was to file an application for grant of fresh licence. By citing the order of the Supreme Court, dated 15.11.2002, in W.P.No.202 of 1995, the respondents state that even fresh licence cannot be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents did not reject the application for the year 2004 on any ground, much less on the ground that the licence fee was not paid within time and the fact that they have received the licence fee for the subsequent years 2005 and 2006 without any demur, discloses that the application for renewal of the licence for the year 2004 was not rejected. He contends that the petitioner was disabled from paying the licence fee within time for the year 2004 on account of reasons beyond his control. He contends that the petitioner was disabled from paying the licence fee within time for the year 2004 on account of reasons beyond his control. The learned Government Pleader for Forests, on the other hand, submits that irrespective of the reasons on account of which the petitioner failed to pay the licence fee within the stipulated time, the licence lapsed by operation of Rule 6 of the Rules. He contends that the mere fact that licence fee for the subsequent years was paid does not wash away the rejection for the year 2004. The fact that the respondents have seized the Saw Mill of the petitioner on 18.03.2006 is not disputed. The only basis for the seizure is that there did not exist valid renewal for the year 2004. The Rules provided for regulation of Saw Mills. Apart from other aspects, they provide for grant and renewal of licences to install and run Saw Mills. Rule 6 deals with the renewals, the relevant portion reads as under: Rule 6: (1) The licensee should submit renewal application within one month prior to expiry of existing licence. (2) If no renewal application is submitted to the licensing authority up to 1st December, a late fee of Rs.250/- shall be levied up to February succeeding year, irrespective of duration of delay, if renewal application is not submitted before the end of February it will be deemed that the licence has lapsed and the saw mill owner should apply for fresh licence. The security deposit available with the licensing authority shall stand forfeited. (3) When renewal application is made, the licence holder should furnish the timber accounts in the format prescribed in these rules for the entire licence period and if the accounts are not furnished, the renewal application shall not be considered by licensing authority. (4) When renewal application is submitted to licensing authority, and till renewed licence is received, the acknowledgement given by the licensing authority shall be treated as licence by inspecting officers. It is evident that a licensee is under obligation to pay the licence fee one month before the expiry of licence. However, with a late fee of Rs.250/-, he can submit the application by the end of February of succeeding year. Failure in this regard would entail in lapse of licence. It is evident that a licensee is under obligation to pay the licence fee one month before the expiry of licence. However, with a late fee of Rs.250/-, he can submit the application by the end of February of succeeding year. Failure in this regard would entail in lapse of licence. Had the respondents seized the Saw Mill of the petitioner in 2004 soon after finding that the petitioner did not pay the licence fee by the end of February 2004, different connotation would have emerged. It is a matter of record that not only the application for renewal for the year 2004 was received on 26.03.2004, but even the subsequent remittances for the years 2005 and 2006 were accepted by the respondents, without any demur. The seizure was affected only on 18.03.2006. The fact remains that by the date of seizure, the renewal fee for the year 2006 was remitted on 31.12.2005 itself. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules becomes relevant in the circumstances of the case. It mandates that till a renewed licence is received, the acknowledgement given by the licencing authority, shall be treated as a licence. Conversely, it means that till the application for renewal is rejected, the acknowledgement deserves to be treated as licence. Even assuming that such an acknowledgement for the year 2004 did not amount to wiping away the operation of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, with the acceptance of the licence fee for the years 2005 and 2006 which are admittedly remitted within the stipulated time, brings about a situation where the acknowledgement of remittance must be treated as licence. Another factor is that even as of now, the respondents did not pass any orders. Therefore, the petitioner can be said to have possessed a valid renewal licence for the years 2005 and 2006 notwithstanding the break that may have been brought about by operation of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules. Therefore, the prohibition imposed by the Supreme Court against grant of fresh licence to Saw Mills cannot be invoked against the petitioner. It applies to grant of fresh licences. For the foregoing treasons, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek renewal of its licence for the year 2007 by remitting the licence fee together with late fee before the end of February, 2007. It applies to grant of fresh licences. For the foregoing treasons, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek renewal of its licence for the year 2007 by remitting the licence fee together with late fee before the end of February, 2007. There shall be no order as to costs.