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