Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of vehicles transporting sand, challenged show cause notices and final orders passed by the Tahsildar demanding payment of royalty and penalty for alleged violation of time limits specified in e-Transport Permits (eTP) issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963. In Writ Petition No. 7012 of 2022, the petitioner obtained a permit from Gujarat valid from 18.06.2022 to 19.06.2022, paid 10% royalty to Maharashtra, and received a zero royalty pass in the form of eTP valid until 02:48 a.m. on 19.06.2022. The vehicle was inspected at 9:00 a.m. on 19.06.2022, found transporting sand beyond the eTP time limit, and seized. The Tahsildar issued a show cause notice demanding Rs. 3,37,310/- and later passed a final order on 04.07.2022 for the same amount. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 7050 of 2022, the petitioner's vehicle was seized and a final order was passed on 29.06.2022. The petitioners challenged both the show cause notices and final orders. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding alternate remedy under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The court held that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to impose penalty or demand royalty under the MLR Code for violation of time limits under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as the rules provide separate mechanisms. Since the orders were without jurisdiction, the writ petitions were maintainable despite alternate remedy. The court quashed the show cause notices and final orders, directing release of the vehicles without any further demand.
Headnote
A) Jurisdiction - Tahsildar - Penalty for Minor Mineral Violation - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to impose penalty or demand royalty under the MLR Code for violation of time limit in e-Transport Permit issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963. The court held that the seizure and demand were without authority of law and quashed the proceedings. (Paras 2-5)
B) Alternate Remedy - Maintainability - Writ Petition - The availability of an alternate remedy under Section 247 of the MLR Code does not bar the writ petition when the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. The court entertained the petition as the Tahsildar acted beyond his powers. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to impose penalty and demand royalty under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for violation of time limit specified in e-Transport Permit issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963?
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the show cause notices and final orders, and directed the respondents to release the vehicles without any further demand.
Law Points
- Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to impose penalty under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for violation of time limit in e-Transport Permit under Minor Mineral Concession Rules
- 1963
- Show cause notice and final order demanding royalty and penalty without authority of law are liable to be quashed
- Alternate remedy not a bar when order is without jurisdiction
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (10) 34
Writ Petition No. 7012 of 2022 with Writ Petition No. 7050 of 2022
Shri Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh for Petitioner; Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondents
Shaikh Ansari Zameer S/o Shaikh Abdul Haq (WP 7012/2022); Deoram S/o Pandit Mahajan (WP 7050/2022)
The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Ministry, Mumbai; The Tahsildar, Jamner (WP 7012/2022); The Tahsildar, Nandurbar (WP 7050/2022)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging show cause notices and final orders of Tahsildar demanding royalty and penalty for alleged violation of time limit in e-Transport Permit for sand transportation.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of show cause notices and final orders, and release of seized vehicles without payment of demanded amounts.
Filing Reason
Petitioners' vehicles were seized and demands were made for transporting sand beyond the time limit specified in e-Transport Permits, which the petitioners contended was without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
Show cause notices were issued, and after response, final orders were passed by the Tahsildar demanding the amounts.
Issues
Whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to impose penalty and demand royalty under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for violation of time limit in e-Transport Permit under Minor Mineral Concession Rules?
Whether the writ petitions are maintainable despite availability of alternate remedy under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to impose penalty or demand royalty under the MLR Code for violation of time limits under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as the rules provide separate mechanisms.
Respondent State raised preliminary objection that petitioners have alternate remedy of appeal under Section 247 of the MLR Code, hence writ petitions are not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to impose penalty or demand royalty under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for violation of time limits specified in e-Transport Permits issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963. The orders passed without jurisdiction are liable to be quashed, and the availability of alternate remedy does not bar the writ petition when the order is without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging show cause notices. During pendency, the Tahsildar passed final orders on 04.07.2022 (WP 7012/2022) and 29.06.2022 (WP 7050/2022). Petitions were amended to challenge those orders. The court heard both petitions together and delivered judgment on 17.10.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 247
- Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963:
