Kailas Bhagwant Navale vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2025)

Kailas Bhagwant Navale vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30 August 2024 quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c); Rs. 2,86,688 collected pursuant to the impugned order to be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks, failing which it carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of deduction until repayment; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30 August 2024 of the Tahsildar, Nasik imposing a fine on the petitioner for transporting 'gitti' without a valid licence under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is sustainable, given that 'gitti' does not fall within the definition of 'Minor Minerals' and therefore requires no transport licence.

Court's answer

'Gitti' (crushed stone) does not fall within the definition of 'Minor Minerals' under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013; consequently, no licence is required for its transportation — the settled legal position consistently held by the Division Benches of this Court, which this Court follows.

Ratio / Principle

The action taken by respondent No. 4 – the Authority under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – against the petitioner for transporting 'gitti' without a licence is without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 785 of 2025 — Kailas Bhagwant Navale v. State of Maharashtra — Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, S. 48(8) — Transport of 'gitti' (crushed stone) — By order dated 30 August 2024 the Tahsildar, Nasik fined the petitioner Rs. 86,688 for transporting 'gitti' without a valid licence — Held, following the settled legal position consistently laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in W.P. No. 4077 of 2009 (Pralhad S/o Vishnu Wayade) and W.P. No. 1273 of 2018 (Dipak Logistics and Forwarders), that 'gitti' does not fall within the definition of 'Minor Minerals' under S. 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013; consequently no licence is required for its transportation; the action by the Authority under S. 48(8) MLRC is without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable — Impugned order quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c); Rs. 2,86,688 collected pursuant to the impugned order to be refunded within four weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum from the date of deduction until repayment; no costs — Order modified as per order dated 18 February 2025.

909-wp-785-2025 mmodified.doc

Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.785 OF 2025

Kailas Bhagwant Navale … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue & Forest Department & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde a/w Prathmesh T. Bhanuwanshe, for petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for State – respondent.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2025

P.C.:

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30 August 2024 passed by the Tahsildar, Nasik, whereby a fine of 86,688/-₹ has been imposed on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was transporting "gitti" without a valid license. The impugned order has been passed in exercise of powers purportedly under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, read with relevant rules governing mineral transportation.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner invited my attention to the Division Bench judgments in Writ Petition No. 4077 of 2009 (Pralhad S/o Vishnu Wayade & Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra &

1

909-wp-785-2025 mmodified.doc

Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2018 with connected matters (Dipak Logistics and Forwarders & Anr. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.). The Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that "gitti" (crushed stone) does not fall within the definition of "Minor Minerals" as per Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. Consequently, a license for its transportation is not required. In view of this settled legal position, the action taken by respondent No. 4 – Authority under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30 August 2024 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c).

The amount of ₹ 2,86,688/- collected pursuant to the impugned order shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of production of this order before the Authority, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deduction until repayment.

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.No costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Note:- This order is modified as per the order dated 18 February 2025.

2