1 915-WP-1470-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 1470 OF 2025 Ganesh Shivaji Jadhav VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Minister And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar h/f. Mr. R. P. Cheble AGP for Respondent-state : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar … CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 13th MARCH, 2025. P. C. :- . Heard the parties. By consent, taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Latur, in proceeding No. 2024/Minerals/Kavi-1147, rejecting petitioner's appeal. The petitioner was found transporting khadi/gitti in his vehicle, which was intercepted by the authorities. A notice was issued regarding potential action for carrying minor minerals without proper authorization. Consequently, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Latur, on 11.12.2024, imposed a penalty of 2,33,550/- for carrying 5 ₹ brass of khadi/gitti, comprising 2,00,000/- for unauthorized use of ₹ the vehicle and the remaining amount for transporting 5 brass of 1 of 4 2025:BHC-AUG:7714 2 915-WP-1470-25.odt khadi/gitti. 3. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority; thus, the petitioner is before this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the authorities issued a notice stating that the petitioner's vehicle was carrying khadi/gitti. The petitioner contends that the vehicle was rented out to another person and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount. The vehicle was seized for some time. The learned Advocate for the petitioner specifically argues that khadi/gitti does not fall under the definition of minor minerals. Judgments were presented to the authorities; however, despite this, the authorities failed to consider this fact." 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the following orders of this Court : (a) Vishal Laxman Shinde vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 8194 of 2022. (b) Shri. N. K. Gade, through its parner vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary in Writ Petition No. 10900 of 2023. (c) Radhakrishna Raosaheb Dusunge vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary in Writ Petition No. 13835 of 2023. (d) Mangesh Vitthalraoji Kshirsagar vs. State of Maharashtra through 2 of 4 3 915-WP-1470-25.odt its Secretary in Writ Petition No.6032 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 5. The learned AGP supports the orders by saying that khadi/gitti is made of materials which can be said to be minor minerals. Under the name of khadi/gitti , the vehicle owner was carrying some other minor minerals and therefore action is taken. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the parties, this Court has gone through the report issued by the learned Tahsildar, Latur dated 05.12.2024. In the said report, it is stated that the vehicle was found carrying 5 brass of khadi/gitti and the vehicle was seized. Even, the learned SDO by order dated 12.12.2024 has observed that the vehicle was carrying 5 brass of khadi/gitti and still has imposed the penalty in the order passed by the learned Additional Collector. There is nothing to indicate that the material being transported was not khadi/gitti , but was minor minerals. It is consistently case of the petitioner that, the khadi/gitti does not amount to minor minerals. The authorities have failed to appreciate this argument. It is observed that the term khadi/gitti fall under the definition of minor minerals. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was possessing license/permission to make 3 of 4 4 915-WP-1470-25.odt khadi/gitti out of such stones which happens to be minor minerals and has passed the order. After going through the judgments, it is specifically observed that by relying upon some other judgment that khadi/gitti does not fall under the definition of minor minerals. Considering the above, this Court finds that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. It is necessary for the authorities if, khadi/gitti is made from stones falling in the category of minor minerals. The said fact should necessarily be reflected in the notice issued to such persons against whom the actions are sought to be taken. In the present case it does not appear that, it is case of the authorities that, khadi/gitti carried in the vehicle was made from any mineral. In absence of such wording, it is difficult to appreciate argument of the learned AGP to that effect. 8. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and “C” with no order as to costs. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) PRW 4 of 4