1 903-WP-10441-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 WRIT PETITION NO. 10441 OF 2026 Pratap Digambar Bandgar VERSUS The Additional Collector Dharashiv And Ors. ... Mr.Patil Hanmant V. for the Petitioner. Ms.Meenakshi Sangeet, AGP for the Respondents/State. ... CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 01.09.2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 31st July, 2026 passed by the Additional Collector, Dharashiv in Case No.2026/REVENUE/GH/APPEAL/KV/309 and the order dated 12th June, 2026, passed by the Sub Division Officer (‘SDO’) seeking direction the quash and set aside the orders passed by the SDO as well as the Additional Collector and to release Hyva/Tipper bearing registration no.MH-24-AU-4654. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is the owner of a Hyva bearing Registration No. MH-24-AU-4654. The said vehicle was engaged for transporting sand, pursuant to the permission granted by the concerned Authorities. 2. The Competent Authority had issued a transport permit vide E.T.P. No.32100181 in favour of Shivaji Dadarao Birajdar for lifting five brass sand and to supply the sand at village Bhusani, Taluka Omarga. The Sunny Thote 2026:BHC-AUG:40844 2 903-WP-10441-2026.odt said permit was issued on 3rd June, 2026 and it was valid from 04:17 p.m upto 8:30 p.m. on the same day. 3. It is submitted that the vehicle of the Petitioner was loaded with five brass sand at village Shiur and it proceeded towards village Bhusani. When the vehicle about to reach village Bhusani, just 300 feet away from the said destination, both the rear tyres of the left side were punctured/burst. Thereafter, the Petitioner was required to manage the substitution of the tyres as it were not in the reparable condition. After changing the tyres, when the Petitioner was about to proceed to the destination for unloading of the sand, the anti-mining squad has reached on the spot, and without considering the explanation given by the Petitioner, seized the vehicle by preparing Panchanama. 4. It is submitted that the Panchanama was conducted on 4th June, 2026, and it clearly shows that after the Panchanama was conducted, the vehicle was parked in the premises of Tahsil office. After the vehicle was parked in the Tahsil office, the Tahsildar appears to have submitted a report to the SDO on the very day and on 4th June, 2026 itself. A show-cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner, as to why a penalty to the extent of Rs.3,69,728/- should not be imposed upon him as per the calculation mentioned in a tabular form. Calling upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of two working days. Failure of which, would entail in imposition of penalty as per Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Sunny Thote 3 903-WP-10441-2026.odt 5. It is submitted that the Petitioner has tendered the explanation to the show-cause notice and without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, the SDO has passed an order of imposition of penalty on the Petitioner vide order dated 12th June, 2026. The order passed by the SDO was assailed before the District Collector, Dharashiv, which has been rejected by him vide order dated 31st July, 2026. Thus, being aggrieved by the order passed by both the Authorities, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 6. The primary contention of the Petitioner is that the procedure as contemplated under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, has not been followed by the Authorities after seizure of the vehicle and this fact has not been taken into account by both the Revenue Authorities, while passing the order. It is his contention that he was holding a valid pass for transport of the sand. However, on account of punctured tyres of the vehicle, the vehicle was delayed and just 300 feet away from its destination. Hence, the sand could not be transported within the time prescribed in the transport permit. It is submitted that though the Section 48(8)(2) of the said Code requires the vehicle to be produced before the Collector or such other Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector, within a period of 48 hours of such seizure, who may release such seized machinery or equipment means of transport on payment by owner thereof, such penalty as may be prescribed. The procedure has not been followed and straight way the Sunny Thote 4 903-WP-10441-2026.odt SDO has issued a show-cause notice, which has culminated into order dated 12th June, 2026 and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 7. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner on various orders passed by this Court on the same issue, such as order passed in Writ Petition No.1273 of 2018 & connected Petition dated 6th February, 2018 in Dipak Logistics and Forwarders & Anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Writ Petition No.8915 of 2024 dated 30th August, 2024 in Shahaji Uttam Rakibe V/s. The State of Maharashtra, alongwith two more orders. 8. Per contra, the learned AGP, Ms.Sangeet for the State relying on the affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that, in fact after the physical interception of the vehicle, the spot Panchanama dated 6th June, 2026 has been conducted by Respondent No.3 and immediately thereafter submitted the official seizure proposal to Respondent No.2 which is well within the prescribed statutory period of 48 hours. It is also submitted that under Section 48(8)(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the Tahsildar does not require prior written order to seize a vehicle found actively engaged in the unauthorized mineral transportation, since the power of immediate inspection and custody is directly conferred by a statute. 9. So far as the adherence to Section 48(8)(2) of the said Code is concerned, it is submitted that the seizure of vehicle was promptly Sunny Thote 5 903-WP-10441-2026.odt reported and produced before Respondent No.2 within 48 hours, in fact it was produced before the Authority on the very day, on which the report was submitted by the Tahsildar. Thus, according to him, there is no violation of Section 48(8)(2)of the said Code. 10. After hearing the respective parties and perusal of the Panchanama along with the orders impugned, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner was holding a valid lisence for transport of sand. It is the case of the Petitioner that only on account of the punctured tyres, he could not reach the destination within the time limit prescribed in the transport permit. The Petitioner has supported his stand with the photographs showing the replacement of tyers, which is being carried out by the Petitioner. Even the Panchanama dated 4th June, 2026, shows that after the Panchanama is conducted, the vehicle has been parked in the premises in the Tahsil Office. The show-cause notice dated 4th June, 2026 issued by the SDO refers to the report of the Tahsildar, Omarga. However, he does not mention that the vehicle was produced before him as per Section 48(8)(2) of the said Code. Similarly, the order impugned also refers only to the report submitted by the Tahsildar and the notice issued by him to the Petitioner and his reply, which was not found to be satisfactory. 11. The appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Collector has been rejected on the ground that, the Petitioner has not informed about the breaking down of his vehicle through whats-app or message. Hence, Sunny Thote 6 903-WP-10441-2026.odt the stand of the Petitioner that, the vehicle had broken down due to which there was a delay in transport, has not been favorably considered by the Authority. It is held that, the time prescribed for transportation was already over hence on the basis of the same, the penalty has been imposed. The Panchanama placed on record does not disclose that, the vehicle was produced before the SDO for passing of the order as contemplated under Section 48(8) of the said Code. Although the order is passed well within the time prescribed of 48 hours, but neither the Panchanama nor the show-cause notice disclose that, it was produced before the SDO, which is in breach of the procedure prescribed under Section 48(8)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which reads thus : “(8) (1) Without prejudice to the provision of sub- section (7), the Collector or any revenue officer [***] authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine, quarry or other place referred to in sub-section (7), the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, and may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of transport deployed to transport the same. (2) Such machinery or equipment or means of transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such Sunny Thote 7 903-WP-10441-2026.odt seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport, stating therein that such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same.]” 12. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was holding a valid lisence. Thus, it cannot be said that the transport of the sand was totally without any permission or lisence. The only breach is the delay in transportation of sand beyond the time mentioned in the E.T.P. pass. Since neither the Panchanama nor the show-cause notice contain any averment about the production of the vehicle before the SDO, before passing of the order impugned, both the orders that do not confirm to the procedure would not survive it initiates the action taken as well as the seizure of the vehicle. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Shahaji Uttam Rakibe (supra), as well as Sunil Bhausaheb Dhage (supra), thus, in my view, due to failure to comply with the necessary procedure as prescribed under Section 48(8)(2) of the said Code, the orders impugned become unsustainable in law and the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 13. In wake of above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause [B], and is accordingly disposed off. [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ] Sunny Thote