1 1021wp13216.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1021 WRIT PETITION NO. 13216 OF 2022 SANDIP BHAGWAN KADAM VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.B.Kharosekar AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. V.S.Badakh … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 09.12.2025 PER COURT : 1. This petition take exception against show cause notices dated 06.12.2022 calling upon the Petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 3,19,600/- for transportation of gitti/stone gravel (khadi). 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this issue has been duly covered by various judgments of this Court. He placed reliance on following judgments/orders :- (i) Vishal Laxman Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 8194/2022, dated 25/08/2022 (ii) Sandip Bhagwan Kadam Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 13216/2022, dated 22/12/2022 (iii) Shekhar Bhanudas Dethe Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others in Writ Petition No. 3504/2023, dated 10/04/2023 (iv) Sagar Bhanudas Dethe Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others in Writ Petition No. 9850 /2023, dated 22/08/2023 (v) Kiran Madhukar Aher Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 13834/2023, dated 04/11/2023 2 1021wp13216.22 (vi) Aditya Chandrakant Teke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 13839/2023, dated 04/11/2023 3. Learned AGP has opposed the petition. He sought to place reliance on the Government Resolution dated 09/05/2023 stipulating guidelines for issuance of authorization to the stone crushers. 4. This submission made by the learned AGP has already been duly considered by this Court in case of Vishwas Ratan Murtadak Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others in Writ Petition No. 5885/2024, dated 02/07/2024. No different view needs to be taken than the one taken by Co-ordinate Bench. 5. Perusal of the impugned show cause notice indicates that the penalty is sought to have been imposed for transportation of gitti (khadi) which is a finished product. The Division Bench has held in case of Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade Vs. State of Maharashtra and others dated 19.3.2010 in Writ Petition No. 4077/2009 (Nagpur) that Section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application to finished product and therefore, provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act. Thus, by following the aforestated judgments, petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) mahajansb/