Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Wasif Abdul Latif, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 2.9.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, imposing a penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) and seizing his truck under Section 48(8) of the Code. The petitioner was transporting sand in his truck, and the vehicle was seized on the ground that the sand was not covered by tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism. The petitioner contended that he was legally carrying the mineral and that the mere failure to cover the sand did not attract the provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code, which are meant for cases of illegal extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minerals. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal and that the action was justified under the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 48 of the Code and noted that sub-section (7) imposes a penalty on any person who, without lawful authority, extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral, and sub-section (8) provides for seizure of vehicles used in such illegal activities. The court held that the failure to cover the mineral with tarpaulin does not amount to any of the acts specified in Section 48(7) or (8). The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Penalty and Seizure - Sections 48(7) and 48(8) - Interpretation - The provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 apply only when a person illegally extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral without lawful authority. Failure to cover the mineral with tarpaulin during transportation does not attract these provisions. The impugned order imposing penalty and seizing the vehicle was quashed. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seizure of a vehicle and imposition of penalty under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is valid when the only allegation is that the mineral (sand) was not covered by tarpaulin during transportation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.9.2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith.
Law Points
- Interpretation of penal provisions
- Strict construction of penal statutes
- Section 48(7) and 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 apply only to illegal extraction or removal of minerals
- Not covering mineral with tarpaulin is not an offence under Section 48(7) or 48(8)
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 109
Writ Petition No.6636 of 2016
Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
Shri A.B. Moon for petitioner, Smt. H.N. Prabhu for respondents
State of Maharashtra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging penalty and seizure order under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 2.9.2016 imposing penalty and seizing vehicle, and direction to release vehicle
Filing Reason
Petitioner's truck was seized and penalty imposed for not covering sand with tarpaulin during transport, which petitioner argued was not an offence under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code
Previous Decisions
Order dated 2.9.2016 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot imposing penalty under Section 48(7) and seizing vehicle under Section 48(8)
Issues
Whether the seizure of vehicle and imposition of penalty under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is valid when the only allegation is that the mineral was not covered by tarpaulin during transportation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The vehicle was seized and penalty imposed only because sand was not covered by tarpaulin; this does not attract Sections 48(7) and 48(8) which apply to illegal extraction, removal, etc. of minerals.
Respondents: The petitioner had alternate remedy of appeal; failure to cover mineral violates terms of contract and Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 2013; penal action justified.
Ratio Decidendi
Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 apply only when a person illegally extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral without lawful authority. Failure to cover the mineral with tarpaulin during transportation does not amount to any of these acts and therefore does not attract the penal provisions.
Judgment Excerpts
The order refers to the provisions of Section 48 of the Code. The relevant provisions of Section 48 of the Code read thus : 48 ...
Admittedly, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the sand that was transported in the vehicle of the petitioner was not covered by tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism. The failure to cover the mineral with tarpaulin does not amount to illegal extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of any mineral. Hence, the provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code are not attracted.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the order dated 2.9.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot. The petition was heard finally at the stage of admission with consent of counsel.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 48(7), 48(8)
