The judgment established the continued requirement of obtaining eTP for transport of minor minerals excavated from another State into the State of Maharashtra, despite the setting aside of para 5 of the circular in the referenced judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. In these petitions, petitioners challenge show cause notices issued by the Tahsildar directing the petitioners to pay amounts demanded therein for release of their vehicles. During the pendency of the present petitions, final orders have been passed by the Tahsildar on 04th July, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 7012 of 2022 and 29th June, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 7050 of 2022. By amending the petitions, those orders have also been challenged.

3. Though the facts of both the petitions are similar, for the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 7012 of 2022 are narrated.

4. Petitioner obtained permit from the State of Gujarat on 18.06.2022. The permit was valid from 18.06.2022 at 3.17 p.m. till 11.17 a.m. of 19.06.2022. Petitioner paid amount representing 10% of royalty to the Government of Maharashtra as per circular dated 05th February, 2021 and obtained zero royalty pass. According to the petitioner zero royalty pass is issued in the form of e-Transport Permit (eTP). The eTP was valid upto 02.48 a.m. on 19.06.2022. His vehicle was inspected by Talathi, Jamner on 19.06.2022 at 9.00 a.m. As he was found transporting sand beyond the time limit specified in the eTP, the vehicle was seized and show notice dated 20.06.2022 was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 3,37,310/-. Petitioner responded to the show cause notice and order dated 04th July, 2022 has been passed demanding total amount of Rs. 3,37,310/- from the petitioner. Both show cause notice dated 20.06.2022 and final order dated 04.07.2022 are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. Mr. Pulkundwar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Government has raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of the petitions on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of challenging the order of Tahsildar by filing appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “M.L.R. Code”).

6. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel has submitted that since the order of Tehsiladar is without jurisdiction, Petitioners need not be relegated to alternate remedy of filing appeal. His plea of lack of jurisdiction is essentially referrable to the judgment of this Court, Bench at Nagpur in M/s Shree Rajesh Pathak Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2078 of 2021 decided on 07th April, 2022. He would submit that by that judgment, para No. 5 of the circular dated 05th February, 2021 has been set aside and that therefore it is no longer necessary for the transporters transporting sand from other States to the State of Maharashtra to pay any amount to State of Maharashtra. He would further submit that the condition of obtaining zero royalty pass has been incorporated in para No. 6 of the circular only to ensure that due amount of 10% is recovered from the transporters. He would submit that since the condition of payment of such amount itself been set aside by this Court, there would be no necessity of obtaining zero royalty pass. Therefore the order passed by Tehsildar is without jurisdiction.

7. Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that the petitioner was issued permit by the State of Gujrat, which entitled him to transport sand till 11.17 a.m. on 19.06.2022 and, therefore, at 9.00 a.m. on 19.06.2022, the petitioner was well within permitted time. He would submit that the action of seizure of vehicle carried out by the respondents is totally erroneous.

8. Per contra, Mr. Pulkundwar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Government in support of his preliminary objection would contend that only para No. 5 of the circular has been set aside by this Court and it has been specifically directed that circular dated 05.02.2021 would operate excluding para No. 5. He also invites my attention to various other clauses of the circular to submit that under those paragraphs, the petitioner was bound to obtain E-perm