IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 6 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 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 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 a