-1- 919-WP-7280-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7280 OF 2026 KUNDAN GOVIND UGALE MARATHE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANOTHER ...... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh AGP for Respondents - State : Mr. C. V. Bhadane ...… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 17th JULY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner raises challenge to show cause notice dated 19.06.2026 issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Nandurbar/respondent no.2, whereby it is proposed to impose penalty of Rs.20,70,050/- against petitioner for alleged use of dumper bearing registration No.MH-39-AD- 1492 for unauthorized transportation of stone metal/khadi. 2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that this Court has time and again ruled that stone metal/khadi is not a minor mineral and it is a finished product. Therefore, revenue authorities cannot invoke Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 against transportation of stone metal. In support of his contention, he relies upon observations of this Court in case of Vishal S/o. Laxman Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra, in Writ 2026:BHC-AUG:29082 -2- 919-WP-7280-2026 Petition No.8194 of 2022, decided on 25.08.2022 and judgment and order of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in case of Ramakant Krishna Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No.10744 of 2024, decided on 11.06.2025 and orders passed by Single Judge of this Court in many matters. 3. Learned AGP opposes the prayers in Writ Petition. 4. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of impugned notice dated 19.06.2026, it can be observed that petitioner’s vehicle was found carrying 3.5 brass of metal stone/khadi. The vehicle was inspected and it has been seized by invoking powers under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of MLR Code, alleging that petitioner had no valid permit for transportation of gitti/khadi. 5. In case of Ashapuri Enterprises Through Karmiram B. Choudhary v. The State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.3957 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023, this Court observed in paragraph nos.4 to 7 as under : "4. Ms. Mishra relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. and an order passed by the learned single Judge of this court in Vishal -3- 919-WP-7280-2026 s/o. Laxman Shinde vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. to submit that Gitti or Khadi are not minerals and hence the question of obtaining any transit pass or payment of any royalty does not arise. 5. The learned single Judge in Vishal s/o. Laxman Shinde (supra) has expressly held in Paragraph No.7 as under: 7. In the case at hand, this Court is constrained to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as time and again this Court has held that Gitti is not a mineral product, still the authorities are passing the orders and seizing the vehicles in which Gitti is transported in flagrant violation of the Judgment and orders of Division Bench and the Single Judges. Therefore, this Court has to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses – 'B' and 'C'. 6. In Sumit s/o Hargovind Lanje vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.1579/2022, the learned single Judge of this court (Nagpur Bench) has held that the coercive action initiated against the transportation of Gitti will have to be held illegal and ultra vires. In that case also respondent has relied upon the said Rule. 7. In the circumstances, since the courts have repeatedly held that Gitti is not a mineral product, seizure of petitioner's vehicle is illegal and in breach of the orders passed by this court." -4- 919-WP-7280-2026 6. The same view is taken by this Court in catena of judgments. It is now well settled that Gitti/Khadi are not mineral and those are finished product. Therefore, there is no requirement of obtaining any transit pass or payment of royalty. 7. In light of aforesaid settled legal position, notice issued by respondent no.2 against petitioner proposing to take action under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of MLR Code, under which allegation for transportation of Gitti/khadi in petitioner’s vehicle, cannot be sustained. 8. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B), which reads as under :- “(B) The Hon'ble High Court may pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notice of penalty dtd. 19/06/2026 issued by respondent no. 2 and further direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle bearing no. MH-39-AD-1492 detained by them without further delay and for that purpose issue necessary orders.” 9. In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Tandale