[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sangita Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
1 WA-2110-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2110 of 2025
SANGITA GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain with Ms. Sonali Jain, Advocates for
respondents No. 4 to 6.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The present writ appeal is filed against the order dated 15.05.2025
passed in W.P. No. 25505 of 2023 whereby the learned writ court has
dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. The appellant is also
challenging the order dated 18.10.2023 whereby the learned single judge has
directed the appellant to implead complainants before trial court (Respondent
no. 4 to 6) as party and order dated 18.04.2023 whereby the application of
the respondent no. 4 to 6 under order 1 rule 10 of the CPC was allowed.
However, the appellant was granted liberty to apply for the fresh licence in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
2 WA-2110-2025
accordance with law.
2. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner filed a writ petition
seeking a direction to the respondents/authorities to follow the prescribed
procedure and mutate the name of the petitioner in the licence of the sawmill
along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom. The husband of the
petitioner, late Shri Rajkishore Gupta, was the owner/proprietor of Mohan
Shri Sawmill situated at Ward No. 13, Chatera Katangi, Tehsil Katangi,
District Balaghat, and the said sawmill was duly registered in his name. An
application for renewal of the licence to operate the sawmill was submitted
and the licence was renewed for a period of three years with a stipulation that
in case of non-compliance, action would be taken by the respondents under
the M.P. Kashta Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984.
3. It is submitted that during the said period, the husband of the
petitioner/appellant expired and thereafter the petitioner/appellant sought
mutation of the renewed licence of the sawmill in her name. The
respondents, vide letter dated 03.07.2019, stated that if a registered will had
been executed by the former owner of the sawmill in relation to succession,
the licence would be mutated on the basis of such will and in such
circumstances, it would not be mandatory to obtain a succession certificate.
However, in the absence of a registered will, the licence would be
temporarily transferred in favour of the person in whose name an application
for a succession certificate had been filed before the competent court by the
legal heirs of the deceased. In such a case, a No Objection Certificate from
the potential heirs was required and thereafter the sawmill would be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
3 WA-2110-2025
permitted to operate for a period of six months on such temporary transfer,
which could be further extended for a maximum period of six months.
During this period, the succession certificate was required to be obtained,
failing which the registration of the sawmill would be suspended.
4. It is further submitted that the family members of the
petitioner/appellant submitted their letters of consent, whereby the operation
of the sawmill was handed over to the petitioner/appellant after the death of
her husband. The petitioner/appellant submitted an application dated
07.12.2020 before the respondent department for renewal of the licence for
the period 2021-2023 along with all necessary documents. Subsequently, by
representation dated 11.04.2023, the petitioner submitted that after the death
of her husband, she had been managing the day-to-day operations of the
sawmill and, therefore, mutation and registration of the saw mill in her name
would be appropriate in the interest of justice.
5. That the respondent department, vide letter dated 20.04.2023,
informed that the recommendation committee had decided to dispense with
the requirement of a succession certificate for mutation of the licence in
favour of another person. A bare perusal of the said letter shows that
mutation could be carried out on the basis of affidavits submitted by the
family members mentioning the name of the concerned person and giving
their consent. Further, a notice was required to be published in two local
newspapers granting 15 days' time to invite objections, if any.
6. That pursuant to the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by this Court
in W.P. No. 6690/2023, the petitioner approached the Civil Court for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
4 WA-2110-2025
obtaining a succession certificate for the purpose of mutation of the sawmill
licence. The Civil Judge, Class-I, by order dated 12.07.2023, held that a
succession certificate can be issued only in respect of debts or securities as
contemplated under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Relying
upon the judgment in Iqbal Singh v. Everyone and Others, AIR 2013 Raj 1,
the learned Civil Judge held that a sawmill licence does not fall within the
ambit of Section 370(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and, therefore,
no succession certificate could be issued in respect thereof. Consequently,
the application filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
was dismissed.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant submitted a representation
dated 10.08.2023 along with revenue records pertaining to Khasra Nos. 93/1,
94, and 95, stating that all necessary documents required for renewal of the
sawmill licence had already been submitted to the respondent department.
The petitioner/appellant requested the respondents to initiate proceedings for
mutation of the licence in her name so that the same could be renewed.
Despite submission of all requisite documents, the respondent authorities
failed to take any action and continued to sit over the matter, as a result of
which the petitioner/appellant was unable to renew the licence and the
operation of the sawmill was severely hampered.
8. Per contra, the respondents, in their return, denied the allegations
and stated that the application for succession certificate had been rejected.
9. The writ court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in the
connected petition, i.e., W.P. No. 6690/2023, there is no provision under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
5 WA-2110-2025
M.P. Kashta Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 for transfer of a licence
in favour of legal heirs and, therefore, no direction could be issued to the
respondents to consider the petitioner's/appellant's application for renewal of
licence in her favour. Hence, the present appeal is filed on the following
grounds.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant
that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly
submitted an application supported by all necessary documents before the
official respondents, who were duty-bound to consider the same in
accordance with the relevant rules and circulars prevailing in the department.
11. That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per the
proviso to Section 4(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Kashta Chiran (Viniyaman)
Adhiniyam, 1984, where an application is pending consideration before the
authorities, it shall be deemed that such person has been granted a licence
under the said Act. Therefore, till the disposal of the appellant's application,
liberty ought to have been granted to operate the sawmill.
12. That the learned Single Judge failed to consider that as per the
circular dated 20.04.2023, legal heirs of a deceased licence holder are
entitled to apply for renewal and mutation of the licence in their favour upon
submission of affidavits from the family members.
13. That the circular dated 20.04.2023 was issued by the respondent
department in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Madhya
Pradesh Kashta Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984.
14. That the orders dated 18.10.2023 and 18.04.2024 are erroneous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
6 WA-2110-2025
as the dispute in the present case pertains solely to the inaction of the
respondent department in not renewing the appellant's licence and in not
deciding the application for renewal. Consequently, respondent Nos. 4 to 6
have no locus in the present matter and the impugned orders dated
18.10.2023 and 18.04.2024 are liable to be set aside.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and length and perused
the documents.
16. This Court finds that the controversy raised in the writ petition
was confined to the inaction of the respondent-State authorities in not
considering and deciding the petitioner's application for renewal and
mutation of the sawmill licence. The relief sought is purely in the nature of a
direction against the statutory authorities to discharge their administrative
obligations in accordance with law.
17. The private respondents/intervenors neither possess any statutory
role in the process of renewal or mutation of the licence nor have they
demonstrated any legally enforceable right that would be affected by the
decision of the respondent authorities. In the absence of any direct or
substantial interest in the subject matter of the writ petition, the private
respondents/intervenors lack locus standi. Consequently, their presence in
the proceedings is unnecessary and unwarranted.
18. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the application
submitted by the petitioner/appellant for transfer/mutation of the sawmill
licence is pending consideration before the respondent authorities. The
respondents themselves, vide circular dated 20.04.2023, have categorically
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
7 WA-2110-2025
dispensed with the requirement of obtaining a succession certificate for the
purpose of mutation of a licence in favour of the legal heirs of a deceased
licence holder. The said circular clearly provides that such transfer can be
effected on the basis of affidavits furnished by the family members along
with due publication inviting objections.
19. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/appellant has submitted
the requisite affidavits and other supporting documents in accordance with
the said circular. Further, the competent Civil Court has already held that a
succession certificate cannot be issued in respect of a sawmill licence, as the
same does not fall within the ambit of Section 370 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925. In view of the above, insistence on production of a succession
certificate by the respondent authorities is wholly unjustified and contrary to
their own administrative directions.
20. The Writ Petition No. 25505 of 2023 was filed for issuance of the
direction to consider the application of petitioner/appellant for renewal of
licence in her favour legal hires of the deceased which was dismissed stating
that there is no provision under Madhya Pradesh Kashta Chiran (Viniyaman)
Adhiniyam, 1984 for transfer of licence in favour of legal heirs.
21. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change had issued guidelines in compliance of the order dated
05.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union Of India & Ors AIR 1997 SUPREME
COURT 1228 , the said guidelines were thereafter amended vide resolution
dated 11.09.2017, the gazette notification 12.09.2017, relevant portion is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
8 WA-2110-2025
given below:
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE
CHANGE (Survey and Utilization Division) RESOLUTION New
Delhi, the 11th September, 2017
"(g) 'State Level Committee' means a committee constituted by
the State Government under para 3 (2) of these guidelines
(ii) Transfer of license on sale/succession etc shall be done only
with the approval of SLC."
22. Therefore, it is clear that there exists a provision for transfer of
licence. Hence, the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no
provision for transfer of licence in favour of the deceased licensee's legal
heirs is unsustainable.
23. The objector was a party as a respondent in this writ appeal. In
compliance with the interim order passed in the writ petition, the writ court's
order has already been complied with by the petitioner/appellant. The
objector was impleaded as respondents in the writ appeal and has been duly
represented by counsel. There is no dispute between the petitioner/appellant
and the objectors regarding ownership of the sawmill business. The objectors
are neither claiming any right over the sawmill business nor seeking renewal
of the licence in their favour. The objectors were impleaded only on the
ground that a civil suit for partition of property is pending before the civil
court. It is fairly submitted that both parties are in possession of their
respective shares, and the civil court has issued an injunction restraining both
parties from interfering with each other's possession. In our view, the writ
court cannot decide issues relating to share or ownership of land; therefore,
there was no necessity to hear the objectors before renewal of the licence.
Consequently, the objectors are not the necessary party. Since the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
9 WA-2110-2025
petitioner/appellant has already honoured the interim order passed by the
writ court and the objectors were impleaded as a respondents, there is no
requirement to set aside that order.
24. The official respondents issued an order dated 25.04.2018 directing
stoppage of the sawmill operations on account of non-renewal of licence. In
Writ Petition No. 10030/2018, the order dated 25.04.2018 was set aside and
the petitioner was permitted to operate the sawmill. Thereafter, by order
dated 29.10.2018, the respondents again directed stoppage of the sawmill
operations on the basis of a complaint made by a private party. The said
order dated 29.10.2018 was stayed by this Court on the same date in W.P.
No. 10030/2018. Subsequently, by order dated 07.02.2019, the respondents
withdrew the order dated 29.10.2018 and permitted operation of the sawmill,
due to which the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, on the
ground of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents again issued a
direction to stop the sawmill by order dated 14.03.2023. The said order dated
14.03.2023 was challenged in W.P. No. 6690/2023, which was dismissed on
15.05.2025. Against that order, the Writ Appeal No.2109 of 2025 has been
filed on the ground that, as per the circular dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure
A/2), the legal heirs of a deceased licence holder are entitled to apply for
renewal and mutation of the licence in their name after submitting affidavits
of the family members. The order dated 14.03.2023 was issued without
affording any opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show-cause
notice to the appellant, which is mandatory under Section 6 of the M.P.
Kashtha Chiran Adhiniyam. The application for renewal of licence submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
10 WA-2110-2025
by the appellant was pending before the official respondents and, in terms of
the proviso to Section 4(B) of the M.P. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman)
Adhiniyam, 1984, during pendency of the renewal application, the licence is
deemed to have been granted. Therefore, the respondents could not have
directed stoppage of the sawmill operations. The dispute was solely between
the petitioner/appellant and the State, and the interveners had no locus.
Without examining the locus of the interveners, the intervention application
was allowed, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
25. In Iqbal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2013
Rajasthan 1, the Rajasthan High Court held that a sawmill licence does not
fall within the ambit of Section 370(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,
and therefore, a succession certificate cannot be issued in respect thereof.
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the
application filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Further, by letter dated 20.04.2023, the respondent department issued
directions clarifying that there is no requirement of a succession certificate
for mutation of a licence in the name of another person.
26. The husband of the petitioner/appellant, Shri Rajkishore Gupta,
was the owner/proprietor of Mohan Shri Sawmill situated at Ward No. 13,
Chatera Katangi, Tehsil Katangi, District Balaghat. The said sawmill was
registered in his name. The licence was required to be renewed before the
respondent department and was renewed for a period of three years in the
name of Shri Rajkishore Gupta. The licence holder died on 15.06.2019. After
his death, the petitioner/appellant submitted several applications before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11019
11 WA-2110-2025
respondents for renewal/transfer of the licence, but the same are still
pending.
27. The petitioner/appellant has a right to continue her family business,
and the competent authority is duty-bound to decide the petitioner's
application for renewal of the licence. Therefore, the writ court committed an
error in rejecting the petition. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion
that the respondents are duty-bound to decide the pending application for
transfer/mutation of the licence in accordance with the prevailing circular
and statutory provisions, without insisting upon a succession certificate. The
continued inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
28. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 15.05.2025 passed in W.P.
No. 25505 of 2023 is set aside and the present writ appeal is disposed of with
a direction to the respondents/authorities to decide the appellant's application
dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P/8 in W.P. No. 25505 of 2023) within 30 days
from today for mutation/transfer of the saw mill licence, keeping in view the
letter/circular dated 20.04.2023 waiving the requirement of production of a
succession certificate (Annexure P/6 in W.P. No. 25505 of 2023), strictly in
accordance with law.
29. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MSP
