JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, C.J. - Notice was issued on the last date and the parties were put to notice that the petition will be disposed of finally at this stage. 2. The petitioner was granted a licence under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short, the said Act of 2011 ). The licence at Annexure-A records that it was valid till 8th June, 2020. On 7th March, 2020, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-B. By the impugned communication dated 22nd July, 2020 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Licending Authority within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 the said Act of 2011, a list was forwarded to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, the Deputy Director of Land Records, the Tahsildar and the Senior Geologist. The list contained the details of the applications made by the licencees for renewal of their licences under the said Act of 2011 in relation to the lands which were allegedly falling in the deemed forest area. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was included at serial no.9. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the said communication dated 22nd July, 2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman of the Licensing Authority. A writ of mandamus is prayed for grant of deemed extension for a period of twenty years. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon a judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020 in W.P. No.5405 of 2020 along with W.P. No.5503 of 2020. He submitted that the application for renewal of the licence was made by the petitioner before the expiry of the licence and therefore, in view of the provision in clause (i) of subsection (3) of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended by the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment)Act, 2020 (for short, the Amendment Act ), the petitioner will be entitled to deemed extension. 5. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the application for renewal of the licence was not made by the petitioner within a period of three months prior to the expiry of the licence and therefore, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended under the Amendment Act will apply and the petitioner will have to pay a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. An amendment was made to the said Act of 2011 by the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (for short, the said Ordinance ). Now the said Ordinance is replaced by the Amendment Act which has been brought into force with effect from 30th March, 2020. It is the date on which the said Ordinance was brought into force. By virtue of Section 6 of the Amendment Act, extensive amendments were made to Section 5 of the said Act of 2011. Section 6 of the Amendment Act reads thus: 6. Substitution of section 5.- Section 5 of the principal Act, shall be renumbered as subsection (1) thereof and,- (i) in sub-section (1) as to re-numbered, for the words valid for five years and for the words for further period of five years the words valid for twenty years and the words further period of ten years shall be substituted. (ii) after sub-section (1) the following shall be inserted, namely:- "(2) Subject to payment of such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher licenses granted before the commencement of Karnataka Stone Crusher Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty Years from the date of original grant and shall be extended accordingly. (3) The benefit of extension under sub-section (2) of this section shall also apply,- (i) for cases where crusher license renewal application was filed before the expiry of such license which is pending consideration before the licensing Authority; and (ii) for the cases where the licensing Authority has rejected renewal applications solely on the ground of nonfilling of such applications three months prior to expiry of such license but has applied for renewal before the expiry of licence as stipulated under sub-section (1), the renewal under clause (ii) shall be subject to payment of the penalty of rupees two lakh. (4) Upon expiry of the period of crusher license specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of this section, the Licensing Authority may renew the licence on an application for renewal for further period for ten years . The said Ordinance contained similar provisions. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020, had an occasion to consider the same. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment are material which read thus: 8. As per the unamended Section 5 of the said Act of 2011, a licence granted under Section 3 of the said Act was to be valid for a period of five years, which could be renewed for a further period of five years subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the said Act of 2011 and the Rules framed thereunder. The words five years have been replaced by the words twenty years and the words further period of five years have been replaced by the words further period of ten years. Thus, now after the date on which the amendment came into force,a licence granted under Section 3 shall be valid for a period of twenty years and can be renewed for a further period of ten years subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, sub-section (2) added to Section 5 by the said Ordinance applies to the existing stone crusher licences which were valid as on 30th March, 2020 when the said Ordinance came into force. Thus, in view of added sub-section (2) of section 5, the existing licences which were valid on 30th March, 2020 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from the date of the original grant. 9. In these two petitions, the licences were not valid as on 30th March, 2020. However, clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 added by virtue of the said Ordinance provides that the benefit of extension provided under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 shall apply to cases where the renewal applications for grant of crusher licences were already filed before the expiry of the licences and which were pending consideration before the licencing authority. In both these cases, the applications for renewal were admittedly filed before expiry of licences which were not disposed of as on 30th March, 2020 and the same are pending even as of today. Therefore, the benefit of extension of the licence under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as inserted by the said Ordinance will have to be granted to the petitioners in both the cases. 7. At this stage, we must note here that a notice has been issued by this Court for recall of the said judgment and order dated 6th August, 2020 only on a limited question as to whether in the facts of the case, the petitioners therein had applied for renewal of the licence before the expiry of the licence. 8. In the facts of this case, the licence was granted to the petitioner on 9th June, 2015. Therefore, in view of the Explanation to Section 5 in the said Act of 2011, the remaining part of the year as defined in clause (l) of Section 2 will have to be treated as a year. Therefore, the first year of the licence will expire on 31st March, 2016. Accordingly, the licence granted to the petitioner expired on 31st March, 2020. The application for renewal of the licence was made by the petitioner on 7th March, 2020. In view of clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 as amended by the Amendment Act, the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 5 will have to be granted to the petitioner, as the application made by him for renewal of the licence was pending consideration before the licencing authority on 30th March, 2020 when the Amendment Act came into force. 9. Clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 as amended is applicable in a case where the application for renewal of the licence under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011 is made before the expiry of the licence and that the same is pending for consideration. It is not necessary that the application should be made three months prior to the expiry of the licence. It is not necessary that the application should be made three months prior to the expiry of the licence. Sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 will apply to such a case provided the application for renewal of the licence is rejected solely on the ground of non-filing of such application prior to three months of the expiry of the licence. In this case, the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the licence has not been rejected on the ground that the application was not filed three months prior to the expiry of the licence. 10. Now, coming to the impugned communication dated 22nd July, 2020, it is noted therein that the applications which are a part of the list annexed thereto, are in respect of areas which come within the limits of deemed forest area. By the said communication, a request was made to the concerned authorities to carry out a survey urgently as the deemed forest areas will have to be excluded. Thus, the application made by the petitioner for renewal has not been rejected. 11. As far as the issue of deemed forest area is concerned, the same has been dealt with by this Court by the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2019 in W.P. No.54476 of 2016. In view of what is held by this Court in the said judgment dated 12th June, 2019, even assuming that the land subject matter of the licence is a forest or a forest land, that is no ground to deny the request for renewal of the licence. If the land is either a forest or a forest land, the actual activity of crushing can be started by the petitioner only after a consent as provided in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is obtained. However, in this petition, we are not entering into that controversy at all. The reason is that there is a deemed extension of the period of licence pursuant to sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with clause (i) of sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended by the Amendment Act. 12. However, in this petition, we are not entering into that controversy at all. The reason is that there is a deemed extension of the period of licence pursuant to sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with clause (i) of sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended by the Amendment Act. 12. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) We hold that as the application for renewal was made by the petitioner before the expiry of the period of licence granted under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011, the petitioner will be entitled to a deemed extension of the licence in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with clause (i) of sub12 section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 as amended by the Amendment Act; (ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to the deemed extension subject to payment of annual regulation fee as may be prescribed by the State Government; (iii) The issue whether the land subject matter of the licence is a forest or a forest land is kept open in the light of the observations made in this judgment and order; (iv) The petition is allowed on the above terms.