Disposed¶27

Sanjay Bhhujang Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC13 Oct 2025WP/8420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra; Aurangabad Bench; minor mineral extraction; illegal usage of JCB; notice under Section 48(7) & (8); Sub-Divisional Officer Vaijapur; seizure of vehicle on 20.06.2025; interim release during pendency of proceedings; payment of 25% of alleged notice amount Rs.7,50,000/-; usual undertakings; writ petitions disposed of; single judge Arun R. Pedneker.

What did the court decide?

Interim release of the seized JCBs in both petitions on payment of 25% of the alleged notice amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in each matter, subject to the usual undertakings taken by the authorities while releasing vehicles. ¶27

Sanjay Bhhujang Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:29096

¶2

1 PB1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

1 WRIT PETITION NO. 8419 OF 2025

¶5

DADA EKNATH DUBELE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Apparao Bhimrao Kharosekar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. D. Patil

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 8420 OF 2025 SANJAY BHHUJANG CHAVAN

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Apparao Bhimrao Kharosekar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. D. Patil

¶14

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 13.10.2025

¶15

PER COURT:

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The petitions are identical and the same are decided together as the impugned orders are passed by the same authority i.e. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Vaijapur, dated 27.06.2025 in identical facts. The facts are taken up from Writ Petition No.8419 of 2025.

¶18

2 PB1

¶19

The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, wherein the notice is issued under Section 48(7) & (8) for illegal usage of JCB bearing no.MH20as 4164 for extraction of minor mineral. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the JCB is seized on 20.06.2025 and there has been no further adjudication in the matter.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the detention of the JCBs is creating financial hardships and he submits that even if the final order is passed against the petitioners that on appeal he contends that on payment of 25% of the notice amount the seized vehicle can be released. He submits that during pendency of the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer that the JCBs be released. He submits that the JCBs were never seized in any earlier offence.

¶21

Considering the above submissions and that the seizure of the JCBs in Writ Petition No.8419 of 2025 bearing no.MH-20-AS4134 & in Writ Petition No.8420 of 2025 bearing no. MH-20-EE7285 from 20.06.2025 would not benefit either of the parties.

¶22

Considering the pendency of the proceedings, the vehicle / JCBs in respective matters shall be released on payment of 25% of alleged notice amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in each matter,

¶23

3 PB1

¶24

subject to an usual undertakings in respective matters ,which the

¶25

authorities take while releasing the vehicle.

¶26