The central legal point established in the judgment is that the transportation of finished products, such as gitti or metal stone, cannot be regulated under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

JUDGMENT

Rohit B. Deo, J. - Heard Mr. a.R. Ingole, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.R. Rode, learned assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, the petition is heard finally.

3. In the petition, the challenge is to the action initiated by the authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 48(7) and (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code) in respect of transportation of gitti (metal stone) which is a finished product.

4. an identical issue is considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition 5466/2004 (Bansilal s/o Lunkaranji Chandak (dead) through L.Rs. and others v. State of Maharashtra and another)

which is decided by judgment dated 13-12-2018. The factual matrix was that the vehicle owned by the petitioner was transporting metal stone from the stone crusher and was seized in exercise of power under Section 48(7) of the Code and penalty was imposed. The Division Bench noted the provisions of Section 48 of the Code and its interpretation in the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Writ

Petition 4700/2009 (Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others), thus :

'Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to which our attention is invited by both the counsels, reads as under :

'48. Government title to mines and minerals-

(7) any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of repairing or construction of bunds of the fields or on any other plea), nallas, creeks, river-beds, or such other places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, shall, without prejudice to any other mode of action that may be taken against him, be liable, on the order in writing of Collector or any revenue officers not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf, to pay penalty of an amount up to five times the market value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be.'

In terms of the aforesaid provision, any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields bandhas, nallas, creeks, river-beds, or such other places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, shall be liable to pay penalty in terms of the said provision. This provision has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 19-3-2010 delivered in Writ Petition No. 4077 of 2009 (Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others), wherein it is held that, 'considering the purpose for which the said provision is made, viz. for unlawful removal of minerals and not for finished products, the action taken by the respondents under the same is a total usurpation of authority and is completely mala fide in law.'

The Division Bench then articulated thus :

'4. In the present case, it is not the charge that the petitioner has extracted the raw material (Kapchi) from any working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas, nallas, creeks, river-beds, etc., as contemplated by the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was carrying the finished product of Gitti (metal stone) collected from the stone crusher of the petitioner, for which no transit pass is required. The question as to whether the transporter was required to explain his source of metal stone or extraction of clay has been dealt with in Para 7 of the aforesaid decision, which is reproduced below :

'7. as regards the justification offered by the respondents for requiring transit passes, if at all the