Allowed¶32

Nilesh Govind Karale v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC2 May 2025WP/1421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gitti khadi stone gravel finished product transportation penalty show cause notice; Section 48 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code no application to finished product; Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act; Government Resolution 09/05/2023 stone crusher authorization guidelines; Pralhad Wayade WP 4077/2009 Nagpur; Vishwas Ratan Murtadak WP 5885/2024; Nilesh Govind Karale v. State of Maharashtra; WP 712/2024 and WP 1421/2024; Aurangabad; petitions allowed prayer clause B; amounts Rs. 1,40,700/- and Rs. 1,20,850/-.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'; the contents of prayer clause 'B' are not reproduced in the judgment. ¶32

Nilesh Govind Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both petitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'; the contents of prayer clause 'B' are not reproduced in the judgment.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notices requiring the petitioner to pay sums for transportation of gitti/stone gravel (khadi) are sustainable, given that gitti (khadi) is a finished product to which Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

By following the aforestated judgments - including the Division Bench ruling in Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade (Writ Petition No. 4077/2009 (Nagpur)) that Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application to finished product and therefore the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act - the Court holds that the penalty sought for transportation of gitti (khadi), a finished product, cannot stand and the petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The learned AGP's submission placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 09/05/2023 has already been duly considered by this Court in Vishwas Ratan Murtadak (Writ Petition No. 5885/2024); no different view needs to be taken than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), R. M. Joshi, J. (2 May 2025) - Two writ petitions (Nos. 712/2024 and 1421/2024) by Nilesh Govind Karale against show cause notices dated 14/02/2023 and 14/06/2023 demanding Rs. 1,40,700/- and Rs. 1,20,850/- respectively for transportation of gitti/stone gravel (khadi). Perusal of the notices showed the penalty related to gitti (khadi), a finished product. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade (WP 4077/2009 (Nagpur)) that Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application to finished product and hence the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act apply, and following six earlier judgments of this Court (Vishal Laxman Shinde, Sandip Bhagwan Kadam, Shekhar Bhanudas Dethe, Sagar Bhanudas Dethe, Kiran Madhukar Aher, Aditya Chandrakant Teke), the Court held the petitions deserved to be allowed. The AGP's reliance on the Government Resolution dated 09/05/2023 on stone-crusher authorization was answered by reference to Vishwas Ratan Murtadak (WP 5885/2024), no different view being required from the Co-ordinate Bench. Petitions allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:13231

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

909 WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2024

¶4

NILESH GOVIND KARALE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. A. B. Kharosekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent/State

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 1421 OF 2024

¶10

NILESH GOVIND KARALE VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶12

Mr. A. B. Kharosekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent/State

¶13

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 2^nd MAY, 2025

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

These petitions take exception against show cause notices dated 14/02/2023 in Writ Petition No. 712/2024 and 14/06/2023 in Writ Petition No. 1421/2024 calling upon the Petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 1,40,700/- and 1,20,850/- respectively for transportation of gitti/stone gravel (khadi).

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this issue has been duly covered by various judgments of this Court. He placed reliance

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

909.wp1421.24.odt

¶19

on following judgments/orders :-

¶20

(i) Vishal Laxman Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 8194/2022, dated 25/08/2022

¶21

(ii) Sandip Bhagwan Kadam Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 13216/2022, dated 22/12/2022

¶22

(iii) Shekhar Bhanudas Dethe Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others in Writ Petition No. 3504/2023, dated 10/04/2023

¶23

(iv) Sagar Bhanudas Dethe Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others in Writ Petition No. 9850 /2023, dated 22/08/2023

¶24

(v) Kiran Madhukar Aher Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 13834/2023, dated 04/11/2023

¶25

(vi) Aditya Chandrakant Teke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 13839/2023, dated 04/11/2023

¶26

Learned AGP has opposed the petition. He sought to place reliance on the Government Resolution dated 09/05/2023 stipulating guidelines for issuance of authorization to the stone crushers.

¶27

This submission made by the learned AGP has already been duly considered by this Court in case of Vishwas Ratan Murtadak Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others in Writ Petition No. 5885/2024, dated 02/07/2024 . No different view needs to be taken than the one taken by Co-ordinate Bench.

¶28

Perusal of the impugned show cause notice indicates that the penalty is sought to have been imposed for transportation of gitti (khadi) which is a finished product. The Division Bench has held in case of Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade Vs. State of Maharashtra and others dated

¶29

2 of 3

¶30

909.wp1421.24.odt

¶31

19.3.2010 in Writ Petition No. 4077/2009 (Nagpur) that Section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application to finished product and therefore, provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act. Thus, by following the aforestated judgments, petition deserves to be allowed.

¶32

Petitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.

¶33

ssp

¶34

3 of 3

¶35

909.wp1421.24.odt

Nilesh Govind Karale v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Govind Karale v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Balaram Patil vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit Dilip Gupta vs State of Maharashtra

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mrs. Shagufta Farooqui Dhillon and Anr.

Nilesh Govind Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Devendra Mahendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Ms Arjun Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Representative vs Seetaram Mohan Mahanto Died through Lrs Santosh Kumar Sitaram Mahato and Others