JUDGMENT : Ext.P13 order rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence for sawmill/other wood industries is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner claims that she has been conducting a sawmill under the name and style of ‘Nidhi Wood Industries'. According to her, the said unit was purchased by her from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) as per Ext.P1 certificate in an auction conducted by the KFC. She claimed that the industrial unit purchased by her in auction was being conducted in the name and style of ‘M/s.Winsor Saw Mill in Panavoor Grama Panchayat from 1995-96 onwards and on the basis of purchase by her on 27.2.2009 from the KFC, she submitted Ext.P2 application on 21.10.2010 for licence for running the sawmill, in the name of Nidhi Wood Industries. It is stated that the Pollution Control Board had granted her consent to establish M/s.Nidhi Wood Industries as per Ext.P3 letter dated 07.11.2009. She had submitted Ext.P4 application for No Objection Certificate from the Chief Conservator of Forest on 14.9.2010. It is stated that as per Ext.P5 letter dated 24.01.2011 the Chief Conservator of Forest had acknowledged receipt of Ext.P4 application and informed her that a decision on it could be conveyed on receipt of the orders from State Level Committee constituted under the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is her further case that she had been running an industrial unit in the name and style ‘M/s.Nidhi Industries' for which Ext.P6 SSI registration was granted by the Assistant District Industries Officer on 18.01.2002, for manufacturing of wooden furniture materials. As per Ext.P7 letter dated 26.06.2002 the Divisional Forest Officer, Thiruvananthapuram had given no objection for granting SSI registration to the furniture unit of the petitioner M/s.NIdhi Industries for manufacturing wooden furniture materials in Sreekariyam Panchayat. Whileso, she received Ext.P8 notice from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram directing closure of the unit stating that the said unit was being run from 2009 onwards without NOC from the Forest Department. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon approached this Court in W.P(c).No.85/2011 and by Ext.P9 judgment this Court had directed the competent authority under Forest Department to consider her application for issuance of NOC and to pass appropriate orders. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon approached this Court in W.P(c).No.85/2011 and by Ext.P9 judgment this Court had directed the competent authority under Forest Department to consider her application for issuance of NOC and to pass appropriate orders. In Ext.P9 judgment this Court has referred to G.O(P).No.93/99/Forest dated 15.11.1999, according to which all sawmills functioning within 5 kms have to get no objection certificate from the Forest Department every year and in the case of sawmills beyond 5 kms, the no objection certificate should be obtained quinquennial. 3. Thereafter Ext.P10 licence was issued to the petitioner under form No.IIA for the period from 07.09.2013 to 06.09.2016, showing the same as renewal for licenced units prior to 30.10.2002. Thereafter, she submitted Ext.P11 application on 22.07.2016 for renewal of licence in Form No.IC under Rule 11. That application was rejected as per Ext.P13 letter dated 23.06.2017 stating that there was no material to prove that Nidhi Sawmill started functioning before 30.10.2002. Therefore, it was stated that renewal of licence cannot be granted to Nidhi Wood Industries and therefore she has to stop the functioning of the said unit. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition at this stage challenging Ext.P13 rejection. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P10 licence was issued after conducting enquiries into it and there was no occasion for the 2nd respondent to direct her production of any documents to show that the unit was functioning prior to 30.10.2002. Ext.P7 no objection certificate, which was already issued for establishing the furniture unit, which is a woodbased unit, would show that the petitioner claimed that her unit was functioning prior to 30.10.2002. It is stated that the petitioner had also produced Ext.P12 certificate received from Panavoor Grama Panchayat stating that licence was issued to the predecessor of the petitioner from 1995-96. The petitioner submits that she has got valid licence from the local body and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board for the period upto 31.10.2018 as can be seen from Ext.P14 receipt and P15 consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner submits that she has got valid licence from the local body and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board for the period upto 31.10.2018 as can be seen from Ext.P14 receipt and P15 consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner's contention is that an application for renewal can be rejected only on fulfilment of any of the conditions specified in Rule 10(3)(b) of Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Woodbased Industrial Units) Rules, 2012, ['2012 Rules' for short] and that none of those conditions are available in the present case once the licence was already granted as per Ext.P10 and that therefore Ext.P13 is liable to be set aside. A contention is also raised on the basis of Ext.P12 certificate stating that the predecessor of the petitioner was conducting sawmill from 1995-96 onwards. 5. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that Ext.P7/Annex.R2(a) No Objection Certificate issued to the petitioner on 26.6.2002 by the 2nd respondent was for granting SSI registration to her unit for manufacturing wooden furniture materials and the same was not for running a sawmill. Pointing out Ext.R2(b) consumer registration card of the petitioner, issued by the Kerala Sate Electricity Board, it is stated that electricity connection was provided to the petitioner's unit only on 11.7.2003 and that would show that the said unit had started functioning only after 11.07.2003. It is stated that the petitioner's husband S.Godwin had purchased the machinery items of M/s.Winsiyon Sawmills, Perayam when it was auctioned by the Kerala Financial Corporation and using those machineries a new Sawmill was started at a new place at Chembazhanthi area of Thiruvananthapuram district by transporting and installing the machineries. It is stated that S.Godwin did not attain the ownership of the sawmill which was running at Perayam in Nedumangad Taluk and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner or her husband became the successor of the owner of Winsiyon Sawmill. The furniture shop of the petitioner namely, ‘Nidhi Industries' was run within the limits of Sreekariyam Grama panchayat since the year 2002. NOC issued by the 2nd respondent was for granting SSI registration to that unit for the purpose of conducting furniture unit only and not for a sawmill. The furniture shop of the petitioner namely, ‘Nidhi Industries' was run within the limits of Sreekariyam Grama panchayat since the year 2002. NOC issued by the 2nd respondent was for granting SSI registration to that unit for the purpose of conducting furniture unit only and not for a sawmill. It is stated that under Section 9 Category 1 of Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Woodbased Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 and Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Woodbased Industrial Units) Amendment Rules, 2015, any unit under the category which started functioning after 30.10.2002 shall be given licence only after ascertaining the availability of wood from all sources by the advisory committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. It is stated that the petitioner was not granted licence on the basis of any such assessment and the sawmill was not started on or before 30.10.2002. It is stated that on the basis of the direction in the judgment in W.P(c).No.8533/2011, the application submitted by the petitioner for licence was considered and by mistake the 2nd respondent issued licence for the period from 7.9.2013 to 6.9.2016. On examining the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner on 29.7.2016 it was found that the licence was granted to the petitioner without verification of the connected records and the same was not proper. The petitioner had produced Ext.R2(c) certificate issued by the Health Inspector, Sreekaryam Zonal Office of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram on 13.8.2013 which certified that Nidhi Sawmill engaged in the construction of furniture started functioning before 30.10.2002 using 38 HP motor power when it was in Sreekaryam Panchayat and Nidhi Sawmill had been functioning in the name of Sunaja S.Godwin. Pointing out that the Health Inspector is not competent to issue such a certificate, it was stated that the 2nd respondent had addressed the Corporation to make available the records based on which such a certificate was issued to the petitioner and had requested for a copy of the licence or D&O register for the period prior to 30.10.2002; but there was no response from the Corporation thereafter. It is further stated that the copy of D&O register obtained from Panavoor Grama Panchayat relates to Winsiyon Sawmills from where the machineries were purchased by the petitioner's husband through public auction from KFC. It is further stated that the copy of D&O register obtained from Panavoor Grama Panchayat relates to Winsiyon Sawmills from where the machineries were purchased by the petitioner's husband through public auction from KFC. It is stated that the Range Forest Officer has submitted a report on the application for renewal of licence of the said sawmill and on verification it is found that the sawmill is not a one which started functioning before 30.10.2002 and therefore the authorised officer is competent to issue notice to stop the functioning of the sawmill contrary to the rules. 6. I heard Sri. M.Sreekumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sandesh Raja, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is even entitled to a fresh licence. However, the contentions raised in this Writ Petition is to the effect that the petitioner's predecessor started the unit prior to 30.10.2002. The main contention raised in the Writ Petition is that once licence was granted there is no provision for either cancelling or denying renewal except under the conditions specified in Rule 10(3)(b) of the 2012 Rules. Rule 10(3)(b) reads as follows: "Rule 10: Renewal of licence: xxxx xxxxx (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) An application for renewal may be rejected for any of the following reasons, namely:-- (i) The application for renewal submitted after three months from the date of expiry of the period of licence. (ii) Any statement submitted by the applicant for the renewal of licence is found incorrect or materially false. (iii) The applicant has violated the terms and conditions of the licence. (iv) The applicant has violated any of the rules or any of the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (4 of 1962) or the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972) or any other enactments relating to protection of environment or conservation of biological diversity or rules made thereunder. (v) The applicant does not satisfy the general and special terms and conditions specified in Rule 8 and Rule 9 respectively. In this context it is relevant to note that Ext.P10 is the only license based on which renewal is claimed. It is necessary to have a look at Ext.P10 license as well as Ext.P4 application based on which Ext. P10 license was granted. In this context it is relevant to note that Ext.P10 is the only license based on which renewal is claimed. It is necessary to have a look at Ext.P10 license as well as Ext.P4 application based on which Ext. P10 license was granted. A reading of Ext.P4 application would show that the same was in a format for application for NOC for wood based industries. The name of the industrial unit is given as Nidhi Wood Industries. In serial no.4 of that application as against "Type of unit" the information furnished was "SSI unit". Under the heading ‘nature of activity' and’ sub heading 'primary processing of logs i.e processing of round logs' petitioner had tick marked against 'sawing' and under 'raw materials used' she tick marked against "rubber and other wood'. Under 'product' tick mark was against 'furniture' and under the sub-column for 'others' it was written as 'sawing wood". Against the column for "if the product from the unit is furniture, whether any other Wood Based Industrial Unit is attached to this unit" petitioner tick marked against "yes" and against the next column for ‘If yes specify the details of the unit' it was written "making furniture and sawing timber'. Against the column for "whether the unit is presently functioning or not'', the petitioner ticked 'Yes.'. In the next column for "if yes (a) year of starting and (b) whether licensed as on 30.10.2002' and (c) if licensed no. & Date of License and Licensing authority" the petitioner had written: "2002/yes/32/14/23384 dt.5.6.02 SSI-District Industries, Trivandrum". Against sl.no.15, against the column for ‘the date of electric connection' she wrote 05.6.2002'. In the footnote of this application form 'licence' which is referred to in column no.13 is described as: "license means the license issued by local self governments or Dept. of Factories and Boilers. Registrations such as SSI or PMRC are not to be reckoned as licence." Ext.P4 application was submitted on 14.09.2010. The petitioner has not produced any materials to show that there was any other wood based industrial unit attached to it as stated in Ext.P4. Similarly, she has not produced anything to show that as on 08.09.2010 there was any license issued for running any of the unit other than as SSI. The petitioner has not produced any materials to show that there was any other wood based industrial unit attached to it as stated in Ext.P4. Similarly, she has not produced anything to show that as on 08.09.2010 there was any license issued for running any of the unit other than as SSI. From Annexure R2(b) it can be seen that the date on which electric connection was provided to her industrial unit is 11.07.2003; whereas the date of connection she had stated in Ext.P4 was 05.06.2002. Ext P10 is a license granted in the form no IIA for the units licensed prior to 30.10.2002. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that she was granted license for running a saw mill prior to 30.10.2002. What the petitioner has stated is that she had started a furniture unit on 05.06.2002. For that she relies on Ext.P6 letter dated 18.01.2002 of the Assistant District Industries Officer and Ext.P7 letter of the 2nd respondent issued on 25.05.2002 relating to correspondence between those officers as to no objection for giving SSI registration to petitioner's unit for manufacturing wooden furniture in Sreekaryam Panchayath. Ext.P4 read with Ext.P10 would show that what the petitioner had sought was renewal of license. At the same time, the petitioner has stated that Ext.P4 was an application for NOC from the Forest Department for running the wood-based industrial unit. It is on the basis of Ext.P4 application that Ext.P10 licence has been issued in Form no. IIA under Rule 7(2) for the period from 2013-16 treating the petitioner's unit as a sawmill or other wood based industrial unit having licence prior to 30.10.2002. In sl.no 10 of this license, against the column for "license fee paid' it is shown as 'Rs.1000/-for renewal'. Under Rule 10(3)(b), one of the grounds under which an application for renewal can be rejected is "any statement submitted by the applicant for renewal of licence is found incorrect or materially false". Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P4 application was submitted without furnishing the correct materials and submitting false materials. Therefore, the respondents have every right to look into the materials furnished and to deny renewal, when the petitioner did not have license to run any sawmill or wood-based industrial unit for the period prior to 30.10.2002. 8. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P4 application was submitted without furnishing the correct materials and submitting false materials. Therefore, the respondents have every right to look into the materials furnished and to deny renewal, when the petitioner did not have license to run any sawmill or wood-based industrial unit for the period prior to 30.10.2002. 8. As pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader Ext.P1 would only show that the machineries which were installed in Winsiyon sawmill were sold to petitioner's husband Godwin for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- in an auction conducted by the KFC. The petitioner does not dispute the said fact or the contention of the respondents in the statement that the said sawmill was functioning in Perayam which is in a different Panchayat and nowhere near or within the Panchayat where the petitioner was running the furniture unit. The claim of the petitioner that the Winsor saw mills was of her predecessor does not have any basis. Ext.P12 certificate issued by the Panavoor Grama Panchayat would show that Sri V.Vijayakumar, Elluvila House, was granted licence in the financial year 1995-96 to start Winsiyon Sawmill with 40 HP motor, as per the records in that Panchayat. 9. Under clause 5 rejection of application is also possible when the applicant does not satisfy the general and special terms and conditions specified in Rule 9. Rule 9 read as follows: Rule 9: Special terms and conditions applicable for grant of licence to sawmill and other wood based industrial unit under various categories: The licence issued to sawmill and other wood based industrial unit under these rules shall also be subject to the special terms and conditions stipulated hereunder for various categories specified in Schedule A. Category 1: Sawmills-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution [or licence from the Department of Factories and Boilers, Government of Kerala] shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 shall be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 shall be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. [(iii) A sawmill and a small scale furniture unit that were functioning together in the same premises prior to the 30th October, 2002 shall continue as such and in other cases sawmill and other small scale furniture unit shall not be located in the same premises.] Category 2 : Small scale furniture units-- The small scale furniture unit,-- (i) shall use only sawn timber from licenced saw mills or from other lawful sources; (ii) may use bamboos, reeds and canes for the manufacture of furniture; (iii) shall not use band saw or resaw exceeding the capacity of five Horse Power; (iv) shall not convert round logs; (v) may use resaw or cross cut saw of and below the capacity of five Horse Power, wood planer machines, lathe, special tools, equipments and hand tools for making furniture; [(vi) and a sawmill that were functioning, together in the same premises prior to 30th October, 2002 shall continue as such and in other cases sawmill and other small scale furniture unit shall not be located in the same premises.] Category 3 : Small scale units for manufacturing products such as match splints, match box, pencil slat and photo frame-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution [or licence issued by the Department of Factories and Boilers, Government of Kerala] shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. [x x x x] [(ii)] Units under this category shall use only softwood or other sawn timber suitable for its end products. [(iii)] Units under this category shall not use bandsaw or resaw exceeding the capacity of five Horse Power. Category 4 : Medium scale industrial units using all types of wood for manufacturing products such as packing case, block board and tea chest-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. Category 4 : Medium scale industrial units using all types of wood for manufacturing products such as packing case, block board and tea chest-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 shall be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. Category 5 : Medium scale industrial units using exclusively rubber wood for manufacturing products such as packing case, block board and tea chest-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 will be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. (iii) An assurance shall be given by the applicant that he shall use only rubber wood in the unit. Category 6 : Large scale industrial units using all types of wood for manufacturing products such as furniture, veneer, plywood and particle board-- (i) All units under this category, which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 will be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. Category 7 : Large scale industrial units using exclusively rubber wood for manufacturing products such as furniture, veneer, plywood and particle board-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence, provided other conditions are satisfied. Category 7 : Large scale industrial units using exclusively rubber wood for manufacturing products such as furniture, veneer, plywood and particle board-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence, provided other conditions are satisfied. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 will be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. (iii) An assurance shall be given by the applicant that they shall use only rubber wood in the unit. Category 8 : Wood based industrial units using exclusively imported wood-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to 30th October, 2002 with a licence from Local Self Government Institution shall be eligible for licence provided the other conditions are satisfied. (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after 30th October, 2002 will be given licence only after producing the documents relating to the source of imported wood and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. (iii) Registers and records related to the import of timber with all details shall be maintained and shall always be kept accessible to the forest officers for inspection. Category 9 : Institutions which impart training in wood processing and carpentry-- (i) The units shall function only for imparts training cum facilitation to entrepreneurs and skilled workers in the field of wood processing and carpentry. (ii) A certificate from the competent authority in the Department of Education or in the Department of Industries and Commerce or in the Department of Employment and Training or in any other Department in Government with copy of the approved project report shall be produced before the Authorized Officer. (iii) Quarterly report on the training conducted with all details of the trainees shall be submitted to the Authorized Officer. (iv) Renewal of Registration/licence shall be based on the result of inspection and evaluation of performance. (iii) Quarterly report on the training conducted with all details of the trainees shall be submitted to the Authorized Officer. (iv) Renewal of Registration/licence shall be based on the result of inspection and evaluation of performance. (v) Where the institution is found to engage in production or marketing of wood based products, other than those incidental to training, such unit shall be re-classified into appropriate category based on their activities and end products and shall be subjected to the rules and conditions applicable to the charged category as specified in Schedule A. [Category 10: Small scale units for processing coconut palm or palmyrah wood or both-- (i) All units under this category which were functioning prior to the 30th October, 2002 with a licence from a Local Self Government Institution or the Department of Factories and Boilers, Government of Kerala shall be eligible for licence, provided the other conditions are satisfied; (ii) Any unit under this category which started functioning after the 30th October, 2002 will be given licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available; (iii) All units under this Category shall use only coconut wood or palmyrah wood or both; (iv) Units under this category shall use band saw and resaw upto 10 HP; (v) A written assurance shall be given by the applicant that he shall use only coconut wood and palmyrah wood.]" Under Rule 9 also action can be taken against the petitioner as the petitioner has not produced the license which permits her to saw timber while running the SSI unit for manufacture of furniture. Admittedly the Winsore sawmill was functioning in Panavoor Grama Panchayath and petitioner's furniture unit has been in Uliyazhathura village at Anandeswaram. There is no material to show that there was any transfer of ownership of sawmill and, that too, to another district. Therefore, by virtue of Ext.P1 petitioner's claim that the predecessor sawmill was functioning from 1995-96 cannot be accepted. The petitioner has not even produced the license claimed to have been granted to her on 05.06.2002, which is referred to in Ext.P4 application against column no.13, based on which she sought renewal as a unit started functioning prior to 30.10.2002. Therefore, by virtue of Ext.P1 petitioner's claim that the predecessor sawmill was functioning from 1995-96 cannot be accepted. The petitioner has not even produced the license claimed to have been granted to her on 05.06.2002, which is referred to in Ext.P4 application against column no.13, based on which she sought renewal as a unit started functioning prior to 30.10.2002. However, in para.2 of the Writ Petition she stated that "petitioner has been conducting a furniture unit in the premises from 05.06.2002 and the said unit is an SSI unit." Though the petitioner has stated that the Sreekaryam Grama Panchayath had granted her Ext.P2 license in 2010 to run Nidhi Saw mill, there is no material to show that Forest Department had granted permission for the same. 10. Ext.P4 application would show that the petitioner furnished incorrect statements and materials in the application for licence. When the licence was found to be granted illegally to a unit which is not eligible for the same, it would be open for the respondents to reject the application for renewal. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the definition of ‘wood based industry' provided in Rule 2(r) and argued that the woodbased industries would include sawmill as well as furniture unit. "2. (r) "wood based industrial unit" means any industrial unit which processes wood as its raw material and includes sawmills, furniture units, veneer units, plywood units, match wood units, particle board units and such other units.” It is relevant to note the definition of ‘sawmill' in Rule 2(m) and the ‘small-scale furniture unit' in clause (o) which read as follows: "(m) "sawmill" means an industrial unit with machinery and equipments, whether in a fixed structure or enclosure or not, for sawing round logs into timber, beams, scantlings, planks or battens and for planing the sawn pieces. (o) "small scale furniture unit" means an industrial unit for manufacturing furniture using sawn timber obtained from licenced sawmills or other legitimate sources and operating without band saw.” When petitioner was given registration as SSI only, it is not expected to saw timber except with permission. (o) "small scale furniture unit" means an industrial unit for manufacturing furniture using sawn timber obtained from licenced sawmills or other legitimate sources and operating without band saw.” When petitioner was given registration as SSI only, it is not expected to saw timber except with permission. The ‘State level committee' is defined under Rule 2(p): “2(p) "State Level Committee" means the Committee; constituted by Central Empowered Committee to assess the availability of timber before establishing new wood-based industries, to examine feasibility of grant or permission to units based exclusively on rubber wood and to examine applications received or referred to Central Empowered Committee by the Hon'ble Court regarding grant of permission to new wood-based industries in Kerala.” As per Rule 3, no person shall, after the date of commencement of these rules establish or operate a sawmill or any other wood based industrial unit without obtaining a licence from the Authorized Officer under the 2012 Rules. The rules came into force on publication in the gazette on 19.4.2013. As per Rule 3 even the units which are functioning as on the date of commencement of the rules are required to obtain licence from the authorised officer in order to operate a sawmill. Under clause 3(3), every person owning or running a sawmill or any other woodbased industrial unit on or before 30th October, 2002 shall apply for a licence under these rules within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the rules. Further time was granted to such persons on the basis of 2015 amendment Rules. Under Rule 3(a), such applications are to be considered by the advisory committee and only if the delay is found to be genuine, the applications are liable to be entertained. Sub rule 4 of Rule 3A provides for granting licence to such units which were functioning prior to 30.10.2002 on the strength of licence issued by the local self Government institutions or by the Department of Factories and Boilers if it is found that the installed capacity permitted as per licence is valid on or before 30.10.2002. Sub rule 4 of Rule 3A provides for granting licence to such units which were functioning prior to 30.10.2002 on the strength of licence issued by the local self Government institutions or by the Department of Factories and Boilers if it is found that the installed capacity permitted as per licence is valid on or before 30.10.2002. Under sub rule 5, no sawmill or other wood based industrial unit established after 30th October, 2002 except the sawmill or other wood based industrial unit owned by the Government or exclusively using rubber wood or the small scale furniture unit, shall be granted licence to function within a radial distance of five kilometres from the nearest boundary of any forests owned by Government and having an extent of and above forty hectares. Clause 4 provides for restriction on issuance of licence to sawmills and woodbased industrial unit within 5 km from the boundary of forest owned by the Government. Rule 6 provides for the procedure for obtaining licence and Rule 7 provides for grant of licence. Rule 8 provides for the general conditions for grant of licence. Under Rule 10(3)(b)(ii) when a statement submitted by the applicant is stated to be incorrect, renewal can be rejected. 11. Moreover, Rules 17 and 18 provide for suspension and cancellation of licence. It is also relevant to note that under Rule 9(2) licence can be granted to any unit which started functioning on or before 30.10.2002 only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. Under category 2 the small scale unit shall use only sawn timber from licenced saw mills or from other lawful sources. Rules 17 provides for suspension of license. Rules 18 which provides for cancellation of license reads as follows: 18. Cancellation of licence:-(1) the Authorized Officer may for sufficient and valid reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the licence granted under these Rules, if the Authorized Officer is convinced that the licence was obtained by misrepresentation or by suppression of any material fact which otherwise would have disentitled the licensee from obtaining the licence or the licensee has violated any of the terms and conditions of licence. (2) The Authorized Officer may also cancel any licence issued under these rules on receipt of a report from the authorities of Pollution Control Board to the effect that the unit is causing health hazard to local people. (3). No order of cancellation of licence shall be passed by the Authorized Officer without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the licensee in person and without communicating the reasons for such cancellation in writing to him. (4) The licence issued under the rules are also liable to be cancelled if the licensee is found guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction in an offence punishable under the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (4 of 1962) or the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003) or the rules made thereunder." In case the licence is found to have been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material facts, which otherwise would have disentitled to obtain the licence, the authorised officer can cancel the licence. In the present case, the renewal has been rejected after the expiry of the period of licence. Therefore, it was not necessary to cancel the license. It is seen that the respondents directed the petitioner to produce materials to show that license was issued to her for running a saw mill prior to 30.10.2002. The petitioner did not produce any material even before this Court. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in Ext.P13 proceedings rejecting her application for renewal, when it is found that Ext.P10 license was granted to the petitioner by mistake and based on an application with incorrect facts. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, does not deserve any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.