PRATAP DIGABAR BANDGARversusTHE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR DHARASHIV AND OTEHRS

2026:BHC-AUG:40844
                                                 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 31 st July, 2026

             passed        by   the    Additional     Collector,    Dharashiv    in      Case

             No.2026/REVENUE/GH/APPEAL/KV/309 and the order dated 12 th 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
                                  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 4 th

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 4 th 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 12 th June, 2026. The order

passed by the SDO was assailed before the District Collector, Dharashiv,

which has been rejected by him vide order dated 31 st 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 6 th

February, 2018 in Dipak Logistics and Forwarders & Anr. V/s. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. and Writ Petition No.8915 of 2024               dated 30 th

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 4 th 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 4 th 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