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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' (text of prayer clause not set out in the judgment).

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notices demanding payment of Rs. 1,40,700/- and Rs. 1,20,850/- respectively for transportation of gitti/stone gravel (khadi) can be sustained, given that gitti (khadi) is a finished product to which Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application. +1 more

Court's answer

The penalty sought under the impugned show cause notice is for transportation of gitti (khadi), which is a finished product.

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the Division Bench ruling in Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade (Writ Petition No. 4077/2009, Nagpur), Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application to finished products such as gitti (khadi), with the consequence noted as to the Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act.

Key takeaways

By following the aforestated judgments (including the Coordinate Bench decisions relied upon by the petitioner and Vishwas Ratan Murtadak), the petitions deserved to be allowed.ratio¶31
The learned AGP's submission founded on the Government Resolution dated 09/05/2023 had already been duly considered by this Court in Vishwas Ratan Murtadak (Co-ordinate Bench), and no different view needed to be taken.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (R. M. Joshi, J.) allowed two writ petitions filed by Nilesh Govind Karale against show cause notices dated 14/02/2023 (Writ Petition No. 712/2024) and 14/06/2023 (Writ Petition No. 1421/2024) demanding Rs. 1,40,700/- and Rs. 1,20,850/- respectively for transportation of gitti/stone gravel (khadi). The Court found on perusal of the impugned show cause notice that the penalty was sought for transportation of gitti (khadi), a finished product. Following the Division Bench ruling in Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 4077/2009, Nagpur, dated 19.3.2010) that Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has no application to finished products, and the Coordinate Bench decision in Vishwas Ratan Murtadak Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 5885/2024, dated 02/07/2024) which had already dealt with the State's reliance on the Government Resolution dated 09/05/2023 on stone-crusher authorizations, the Court took no different view and allowed the petitions in terms of prayer clause 'B'. Six earlier Coordinate Bench decisions (Shinde, Kadam, S. Dethe, Sg. Dethe, Aher, Teke) were relied upon by the petitioner and formed part of the line of judgments followed.

2025:BHC-AUG:13230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

909 WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2024

NILESH GOVIND KARALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

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

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 1421 OF 2024

NILESH GOVIND KARALE VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

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

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

PER COURT :-

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).

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

1 of 3

909.wp1421.24.odt

on following judgments/orders :-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

2 of 3

909.wp1421.24.odt

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.

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

ssp

3 of 3

909.wp1421.24.odt