J U D G M E N T

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext. P5, P6 & P7 and to set aside the same by a writ of certiorari;

(ii) To pass a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to renew Ext.P1 the license of the petitioner.”

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:-

2.1. According to the petitioner / appellant, she is a licensee for saw mill as per Ext. P1 license No.90/14-15 dated 08.12.2014 issued under Rule 11(5) of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Saw Mill and Other Wood Based Industrial Unit) Rules, 2012. Since Ext. P1 license was expired, the same was submitted for renewal, in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules 2012. But the renewal was refused on the ground that the licensee is involved in a forest offence.

2.2. Petitioner has submitted that O.R.No.2/16 is a case of the Pathanapuram Range Forest Officer who detected offence under Sections 27/(1), (D), (E), III, IV, V, 61(A) r/w Section 84 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. Altogether 14 accused were involved and petitioner is neither an accused nor a witness in the said O.R. The allegation in the aforesaid forest case is that accused No. 4, a Section Forest Officer, with the help of the co-accused, brought teak and rose wood to the saw mill, for converting the same into wooden pieces. This case was investigated, and on completion, a complaint was filed before the JFCM-II, Punalur, which is pending as C.C. No. 257/17.

2.3. Petitioner has further submitted that the vehicle KL-25/F/6659, used for transporting the timber as well as the machinery of the saw mill including a band saw 15 HP motor, re saw, 10 HP motor and a lift motor, were confiscated by the authorized officer under Section 53 of the Act, on account of being involved in the case. The interim custody of the machines were declined by an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II (Forest Offences), Punalar, in Crl. M.P.No. 704 of 2017. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in CMA No.9/18 before the District Judge, Kollam. Along with CMA No. 9/18, CMA No. 12/18 filed by the registered owner of the vehicle was also heard and by Ext. P4 common order dated 03.12.2018, Additional District Judge IV, Kollam, allowed the CM appeals.

2.4. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner submitted application of license renewal before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kollam, the 4th respondent. By Ext. P5 order dated 28.12.2016, the 4th respondent dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the petitioner submitted appeal before the Chief Forest Conservator, Kollam, the 5th respondent, and by order dated 24.03.2017 in QL. No. 1376/17, the 5th respondent dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, petitioner submitted revision under the Rules 2012 before the Government of Kerala and by G.O. (Rt) 42/2019/forest dated 04.02.2019, Government dismissed the license renewal application.

3. After considering the rival submissions, writ court, by judgment dated 29.07.2022 in W. P. (C) No. 17197 of 2021, dismissed the writ petition, as under:-

“6. This Court has directed the learned Public Prosecutor to obtain the Case Diary relating to O.R.No.2/2016. It is pertinent to note from the statements of the witnesses recorded in OR No.2/2016 that, most of them have stated that the wooden logs were cut in the mill belonging to the petitioner at a time when the period of licence it holds, expired. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Case Diary incorporates an agreement executed by the writ petitioner with her son Mr.Rejil permitting him to run the mill. Apart from the above, witnesses examined have also stated that the wooden logs were cut into pieces in the mill. Thus, the writ petitioner permitted the mill to run through her son after the expiry of the period of licence and caused the wood to cut into logs there and thereby violated Rule 10 of Rules, 2012. Rule 10 deals with the condition