Basudev S/O Matoliram Agrawal vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8029 Bom

                                                                  Cri.W.P.702/2017
                                        1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 702 OF 2017


Basudev s/o Matoliram Agrawal,
Age 39 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Kranti Nagar, Basmat Road,
Parbhani, District Parbhani                             ..Petitioner

        Versys

1.      The State of Maharashtra,
        through its Secretary,
        Revenue Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

2.      The Collector,
        Collector Office, Hingoli,
        District Hingoli

3.      The Sub-Divisional Officer,
        Basmat, District Hingoli

4.      The Tahsildar,
        Tahsil Office, Basmat,
        District Hingoli

5.      The Police Station, Hatta,
        Taluka Basmat, Dist. Hingoli                    ..Respondents

Mr S.T. Veer, Advocate for petitioner
Mr M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondents


                                     CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
                                             A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

                                     DATE OF RESERVING
                                     THE JUDGMENT : 27.9.2017

                                     DATE OF PRONOUNCING
                                     THE JUDGMENT : 11.10.2017


JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Dhavale, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,

heard finally at the admission stage.

Cri.W.P.702/2017

2. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeks following reliefs in respect of his vehicles seized by revenue

Officers in connection with theft of sand.

"(B) Issue mandamus to respondent no.4 (Tahsildar) to handover

custody of :

(I)     Tipper bearing Registration No.MH-22-AA-2271

(II)    Tractor MH-38-B-2832

(III)   Trolley      and       tempo   bearing   Registration      No.MH-19-J-9319

without insisting for payment of penalty



(C)     Writ of certiorari for quashing letter of respondent no.4 dated

25.3.2017 demanding Rs.1,17,696/- for release of the vehicles

(D) Directions to respondent no.2 (Collector, Hingoli) to hold enquiry

with regard to illegalities committed by the Tahsildar, Basmat Naib

Tahsildar, Basmat, Circle Officer, Basmat, in seizing of the vehicle of

the petitioner and extracting huge amount from the petitioner.

(E) Directions to Collector to pay compensation to the petitioner for

loss of major parts of the vehicle like battery, jack, hydraulic jack,

panel etc. and loss of business.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr S.T. Veer for the petitioner and

learned A.P.P. Mr M.M. Nerlikar for the State. Mr Veer argued that the

above referred vehicles of the petitioner were seized by Naib Tahsildar

and Circle Officer of Basmat on allegation that there was illegal

Cri.W.P.702/2017

transportation of sand excavated from the bed of Poorna river. The

petitioner paid the penalty of Rs.90,000+Rs.18,261+53,983, as

directed by the Tahsildar, Basmat. Naib Tahsildar/Circle Officer had

no authority to seize the vehicles under Section 48 (8) of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'MLR

Code' for brevity). Such seizure is required to be reported to the

Collector within forty-eight hours and Collector has to pass necessary

orders and take decision regarding release or confiscation. The

petitioner had deposited penalty of Rs.90,000 + Rs.18,261 +

Rs.53,983, still the vehicles were not released. There were orders

passed by Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of two vehicles. Even one

F.I.R. was lodged before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat and

the petitioner had filed three applications for return of property. The

Police gave no objection and the learned Magistrate passed orders of

return of the vehicles. Still the Tahsildar was not returning the

vehicles. He was demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/- and he had

prepared back dated documents to make further claim of penalty of

Rs.14,70,900/- in respect of alleged seizure dated 5.11.2016. The

order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basmat was not

challenged. The petitioner has purchased sand from Matin Khan who

was granted licence by the State and he was legally transporting the

sand. There was theft of several parts of vehicle seized by revenue

Officers. Therefore, the petition be allowed and the prayers as

referred above be granted.

4. Naib Tahsildar Sachin Jaiswal has filed affidavit-in-reply on

behalf of respondents no.2 to 4. He has denied that the petitioner

Cri.W.P.702/2017

was transporting sand of Matin Khan. He stated that as per report of

Naib Tahsildar letter dated 5.11.2016 was issued for illegal transport

of sand of 100 brass for which penalty of Rs.14,70,900/- was imposed.

The petitioner admitted by letter dated 25.11.2016 that he had

transported 60 brass of sand. The petitioner deposited only

Rs.90,000/- as a part of said penalty. The remaining penalty was not

paid.

5. Vehicle Tractor bearing Registration No.MH-38-B-2832 was

seized on 9.11.2016 and penalty of Rs.18,261/- was imposed for illegal

transport of sand of 1 brass. On payment of the said penalty, the

tractor was released on 7.12.2016.

6. On 5.12.2016, petitioner's vehicle MH-22-AA-290 and MH-22-A-

2271 were seized for illegal transport of sand of 2.5 brass and 2 brass

respectively. For shortage of infrastructure, vehicle bearing No.MH-

22-AA-2271 was kept in the custody of Talathi while vehicle bearing

No.MH-22-AA-290 was given in the custody of Police for protection.

Penalty of Rs.36,122/- and Rs.45,052/- was imposed on the petitioner

by the Tahsildar by order dated 7.12.2016. Rs.36,122/- was paid, but

Rs.45,052/- was not paid.

7. Vehicle bearing No.MH-22-AA-2271 was taken away by the

petitioner from the custody of Talathi illegally, on 10.12.2016. The

same was again seized on 11.12.2016 while transporting sand. The

penalty of Rs.53,983/- was imposed and the same was paid. This

material fact has been suppressed by the petitioner.

Cri.W.P.702/2017

8. Vehicle bearing No.MH-19-J-9319 and MH-38-B-2832 were again

seized on 29.12.2016 and 21.1.2017 for illegally transporting sand.

Penalties were imposed on the petitioner but he did not pay the

penalty.

9. The vehicles were not seized in a case of theft as represented

by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, so

as to obtain orders under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The Investigating

Officer therein was managed and his no objection was taken so as to

avoid liability to pay the penalty before seeking the custody of the

vehicles. Vehicle bearing No.MH-38-B-2832 was seized on 9.11.2016.

Penalty of Rs.18,261/- was imposed. The petitioner applied to Sub

Divisional Officer, Basmat for release of the vehicle and gave bond,

but it was again seized for carrying minerals second time and

apprehending imposition of penalty equal to market value of the

vehicle, the petitioner has adopted this way of getting back the

vehicle. Penalty of Rs.1,17,696/- was imposed on the vehicles due

from the petitioner. The State wants to challenge the orders of

learned Magistrate. Hence, the petition be rejected.

10. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit dated 10.8.2017. He

claimed that the order of penalty of Rs.14,70,900/- dated 5.11.2016

was not passed. It is back dated order. There was oral direction to

pay Rs.90,000/- penalty, which was paid by the petitioner. There was

no case of transport of 100 brass of sand and he had never given

letter admitting 60 brass of sand. He has not suppressed any material

Cri.W.P.702/2017

facts. The State has not challenged the orders of learned Magistrate.

His vehicle MH-22-A-290 was released by respondents no.2 to 4.

11. After hearing learned Advocates, the points for our

consideration with our findings are as follows :

(I)     Whether respondents no.2 to 4 illegally

        detained three vehicles of the petitioner

        and whether petitioner deserves to get

        custody of those vehicles ?                       .. In the affirmative



(II)    Whether any directions for enquiry

        of revenue Officer is necessary ?                 .. In the affirmative



(III)   Whether there was loss of the

        petitioner by theft of parts of the               .. Cannot be decided.

        vehicles and loss of business ?                   Necessary directions

                                                           issued


(IV)    What order ?                                      .. The petition is

                                                           partly allowed as

                                                           per final order.

                                         REASONS

12. The relevant provisions of Section 48 (7) and (8) of MLR Code

are modified from 5.1.2017, but considering the dates of alleged

offences, the old provisions would be applicable in most of the cases,

which read thus :

Cri.W.P.702/2017

Section 48 - GOVERNMENT TITLE TO MINES AND MINERALS

(Old Sections)

"48 (7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of repairing or constructions of bund of the fields or an any other plea), nallas, creeks, river-beds, or such other places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, -shall, without prejudice to any other mode of action that may be taken against him, be liable, on the order in writing of the Collector, to pay penalty not exceeding a sum determined, at three times the market value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be

Provided that, if the sum so determined is less than one thousand rupees the penalty may be such larger sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as the Collector may impose.

(8) Without prejudice to the provision in sub-section (7), the Collector may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine, quarry or other place referred, to in sub-section (7) the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by, the State Government."

Cri.W.P.702/2017

Section 48 - GOVERNMENT TITLE TO MINES AND MINERALS

(AMENDED SECTIONS As per amendment dated 5.1.2017)

"48 (7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of repairing or constructions of bund of the fields or an any other plea), nallas, creeks, river-beds, or such other places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, -shall, without prejudice to any other mode of action that may be taken against him, be liable, on the order in writing of the Collector, or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf to pay penalty of an amount not exceeding a sum determined, equal to five times the market value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be;

(8) (1) Without prejudice to the provision in sub-section (7), the Collector or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up disposed of from any mine, quarry or other place referred to in sub-section (7), the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, and may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of transport deployed to transport the same.

                                                                           Cri.W.P.702/2017


       (2)      Such      machinery       or       equipment     or    means        of

transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement picking up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport, stating therein that such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same".

13. It is well settled that the penal provisions of amended Act apply

prospectively and not retrospectively unless there is specific

provisions to that effect. In the present case, Section 48 (7) and 48

(8) of the MLR Code were amended on 5.1.2017. the provisions of

amended Act would not be applicable to the seizures which took place

before the date of amendment.

14. We find substance in the arguments that as per the provisions

existing prior to the amendment dated 5.1.2017, the penalty was to

be imposed by the Collector and it was to the extent of three times

the market value of the minerals. In case of seizures subsequent to

the date of amendment, the Collector has been given powers to

Cri.W.P.702/2017

delegate his powers of imposition of penalty to any authorised Officer

not below the rank of Tahsildar and the penalty amount is to be equal

to five times the market value.

15. As per old provisions of Section 48 (8) of the MLR Code before

amendment, the power of seizure and confiscate was given

exclusively to the Collector. There was no power given to the

Collector to delegate his powers to his sub-ordinate. As per

amendment dated 5.1.2017, the Collector has been authorised to

delegate the powers of seizure and confiscation of minerals extracted,

removed etc. to any revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar

authorised by the Collector. Sub-clause (ii) of Section 48 (8) of the

MLR Code lays down that when any seizure is made under sub-section

(1), the minerals or means of transportation shall be produced before

the Collector or other Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector

authorised by the Collector in this behalf within a period of forty-eight

hours of such seizure and the decision as to whether the vehicle or

machinery/equipment should be released on payment of penalty and

on furnishing P.R. bond has to be taken by such authorised Officer not

below the rank of Deputy Collector. It is needless to state that the

powers of seizure, imposition of penalty and of confiscation must be

followed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. We find that

in the present case, the Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar and Circle Officer

have many a times exceeded their jurisdiction while effecting the

seizures and passing orders of imposition of penalty and detaining the

vehicle without following the provisions of Section 48 (7) and 48 (8) of

the MLR Code. When these provisions are not followed and when

Cri.W.P.702/2017

F.I.R. is registered without intimation that the seizure was made under

Section 48 (7) and 48 (8) of the MLR Code and not under Section 379

of Indian Penal Code, the powers of Judicial Magistrate, First Class

under Sections 451, 452, 457 of Cr.P.C. are not taken away to pass

appropriate orders for interim custody, as no person can be left

remediless.

16. In case of vehicle, it is necessary to remember that the vehicle

standing on the spot gets junk and becomes valueless. If the

confiscation is to be made, it should be made strictly within short time

and the authority may consider the release of the vehicle for the time

being so that the valuable vehicle is not damaged due to natural wear

and tear. In this regard, the following directions of the Apex Court in

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC

638, should be followed even by revenue Officers. In paragraphs 17

and 18, it is observed :

"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

17. Taking the case of each individual vehicle, we find as follows:

Cri.W.P.702/2017

(I) Vehicle No.MH-22-AA-2271 :

The copy of R.C. Book stands in the name of the petitioner

(Page 21).

As per report of Naib Tahsildar and seizure panchnama, both

dated 5.12.2016, this vehicle was seized along with excess sand of 2.5

brass by Naib Tahsildar on 5.12.2016 (Page 27-28). Naib Tahsildar

imposed penalty of Rs.53,983/- by order dated 29.12.2016 (Page 85).

Penalty was paid as per challan dated 31.12.2016 (Page 38).

Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat by order dated 4.1.2017 (Page

39) issued directions to release the vehicle, but according to the

petitioner, the vehicle was not released. Hence, the petitioner filed

application (Page 40) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Basmat. The A.P.I., Hatta gave no objection (Page 46) and the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat passed order dated

18.3.2017 (Page 49). Still, the vehicle has not been released.

The respondents have contended that the vehicle was involved

in similar offences on 5.12.2016 and 11.12.2016 and there was

direction to deposit penalty of Rs.45,052/- and Rs.53,383/- (Page 81).

As the vehicle was in custody of revenue Officers, the petitioner could

not have committed similar offence with the same vehicle. Therefore,

it was claimed that the said vehicle was taken away by the petitioner

Cri.W.P.702/2017

on 10.12.2016. There is no seizure panchnama of 11.12.2016 on

record. It is not explained how the vehicle was still ordered to be

released subject to payment of penalty by the Tahsildar, when it was

stolen earlier and used for commission of similar offence. This

contention of the respondents that the vehicle was stolen by the

petitioner on 10.12.2016 is not even reflected in the order passed by

Sub-Divisional Officer, Basmat dated 4/17.1.2017 (Page 39) who has

acted on the report of Tahsildar dated 31.12.2016. This case appears

to be concocted and the Collector should make enquiry in this regard.

We, therefore, find that prima facie at this stage, the petitioner cannot

be directed to deposit Rs.45,052/- as per order dated 7.12.2016 (Page

81).

18. It is necessary to note that F.I.R. is lodged against several

persons not connected with each other for acts over a huge period

from 16.2.2016 to 15.11.2016 and on 9.12.2016 (Page 29). It is under

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, the Police have not filed separate

seizure memos to show that this offence under Section 379 of Indian

Penal Code is different from the other offences, for which the

petitioner was penalised. In this case, it has been stated that the

petitioner was taking away sand of 420 brass worth Rs.12,01,620/-.

The vehicle number is not given. The learned Magistrate has passed

order on assumption that all the vehicles were seized in this crime.

The said order dated 18.3.2017 has not been challenged (Page 49).

19. In the light of order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat

and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Basmat dated 17.1.2017, the

Cri.W.P.702/2017

detention of this vehicle by the revenue Officers, particularly

respondent no.4 is illegal.

(II) Tractor No.MH-38-B-2832 : As per copy of R.C. Book (Page 22),

the same stands in the name of petitioner. As per seizure memo

dated 9.11.2016 (Page 75), and order of imposition of penalty dated

9.11.2016 (Page 76), copy of challan dated 7.12.2016 (Page 26), the

vehicle was seized by Naib Tahsildar for illegally transporting one

brass sand for which penalty of Rs.18, 261/- was fixed and the same

was paid on 7.12.2016. The Sub-Divisional Officer had issued letter of

even date (Page 77) directing the release of the vehicle. Still the

vehicle was not released. Petitioner approached the learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Basmat and filed application dated 13.2.2017

(Page 42). The Police Officer gave no objection (Page 47) and learned

Magistrate passed order dated 18.3.2017 for releasing the vehicle

(Page 50-51). This order has not been challenged and the period of

appeal or revision is also over. In spite of order of Sub-Divisional

Officer, Basmat as well as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat,

respondent no.4 has not released the vehicle. In paragraph 12, Naib

Tahsildar has pleaded that the vehicle was second time involved and

was seized on 21.1.2017. Report of Tahsildar to that effect is

produced at Page 36. It does not disclose whether the vehicle was

illegally transporting the sand or not. If it was not illegally

transporting sand, then the revenue Officers have no authority to

seize the vehicle. The penalty of Rs.18,261/- is imposed by

Tahsildar on 21.1.2017 (page 83), but no seizure memo, no enquiry

is done. When the vehicle was already in the custody of revenue

Cri.W.P.702/2017

Officers, it could not have been again used. The bond was given by

the petitioner (page 90) and it is consistent stand of the petitioner

that vehicle was not released in his favour. In view of unchallenged

orders of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and order of Sub-

Divisional Officer, prima facie we find that the vehicle has been

illegally detained by respondent no.4.

(iii) Tempo No.MH-19-J-9319 : Copy of R.C. Book of the vehicle is at

(Page 23) in the name of the petitioner. As per panchnama dated

29.12.2016, drawn by Talathi and Circle Officer (Page 37), this vehicle

was seized for illegal transportation of sand of one brass. Penalty of

Rs.18,261/- was imposed by the Tahsildar as per order dated

29.12.2016 (Page 82). It seems that this penalty has not been paid by

the petitioner. The petitioner moved application dated 13.2.2017

(Page 44). The Police Officer gave no objection (Page 48). The

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat passed order dated

18.3.2017 (Page 53). The said order has not been challenged. We find

that this vehicle can be released subject to condition of payment of

penalty of Rs.18,261/-.

(iv) Tipper No.MH-22-AA-290: This vehicle was seized on 5.12.2016,

but that has been released in favour of the petitioner and documents

with regard to it need no consideration.

20. The Tahsildar has passed an order dated 5.11.2016 against the

petitioner, whereby it is alleged that he was transporting sand of 100

Cri.W.P.702/2017

brass for which five times penalty (+) land rent and other charges

total Rs.14,70,900/- was imposed. Respondents have produced one

letter dated 25.11.2016 (Page 74), whereby the petitioner has

admitted that he had transported sand of 60 brass and was ready to

pay the penalty for the same. Both these documents are strongly

disputed by the petitioner. We find substance in the petitioner's

claim, as the petitioner had requested for information about his

liabilities and by letter date 25.3.2017, he was informed that he was

liable to pay Rs.1,17,696/- (Page 61). If this liability of Rs.14,70,900/-

was existing on that date, it is not clear why this was not included in

this letter dated 25.3.2017 issued by the Tahsildar addressed to the

petitioner.

21. Considering the above facts, we find that it is not necessary to

consider whether the seizure was made under the provisions of Indian

Penal Code or under Section 48 (8) of the MLR Code, as there are

orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Basmat as well as Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Basmat for release of two vehicles bearing No.MH-22-AA-

2271 and MH-38-B-2832. Further detention of these vehicles cannot

be permitted.

22. Considering all these facts, we are inclined to allow this petition

subject to condition of payment of penalty of Rs.18,261/- for release of

vehicle bearing No.MH-19-J-9319 and subject to fulfillment of the

conditions imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat or

Sub-Divisional Officer, Basmat for release of these two vehicles, as

well as vehicle bearing No.MH-19-J-9319 (if remained to be fulfilled).

Cri.W.P.702/2017

23. As far as prayer clause (C) is concerned, it is for quashing of

letter dated 25.3.2017, whereby the petitioner was informed that he

has to pay Rs.1,17,696/-. We find that imposition of penalty of

Rs.45,052/- disclosed therein is not tenable. The petitioner has

deposited Rs.53,983/- for vehicle bearing No.MH-22-AA-2271,

Rs.18,261/- for vehicle No.MH-38-B-2832 and has not deposited

Rs.18,261/- for vehicle No.MH-19-J-9319.

24. In view of the observations made hereinabove, we hold that the

Collector or competent sub-ordinate appointed by him shall make

enquiry into the allegations about the behaviour of respondent no.4

-Tahsildar in not returning the vehicle in spite of orders of Sub-

Divisional Officer, Basmat and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat

and also with regard to his case that vehicle bearing No.MH-22-AA-

2271 was stolen by the petitioner on 10.12.2016 and again used for

commission of offence. The Collector or the person authorised by him

shall make enquiry whether the respondent no.4 - Tahsildar has

prepared back dated documents with regard to penalty of

Rs.14,70,900/- and with regard to second seizure of vehicle bearing

No.MH-22-AA-2271 as per panchnama dated 11.12.2016 and

imposition of two penalties for the same vehicle and reconsider

whether the said vehicle was in the custody of the revenue Officers on

the day when it was allegedly used by the petitioner again for illegal

transport. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion

with regard to merits of these allegations, but prima facie, we find

suspicious circumstances so that there should be proper enquiry in

this matter.

Cri.W.P.702/2017

25. As far as the claim for compensation from respondent no.4

Tahsildar is concerned, it is based on disputed facts. We, therefore,

direct that at the time of delivery of the vehicles, there should be

proper checking by the petitioner in presence of Police Officer and

panchnama should be drawn along with photographs of the vehicles

and if any parts are found missing, the petitioner shall take

appropriate steps to claim compensation by filing any proceeding

before appropriate forum as may be advised to him. This Court

cannot issue directions for payment of compensation or otherwise in

respect of disputed facts.

26. We make it clear that apart from the various seizures shown in

respect of the vehicles referred above, any other seizure or illegal

transport of sand is noticed, the Collector shall be at liberty to take

appropriate decision and authorise any person competent to take

such decision as permissible under the provisions of law.

27. We, therefore, allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (B)

subject to condition of payment of penalty of Rs.18,261/- for release of

vehicle bearing No.MH-19-J-9319 and subject to fulfillment of

conditions imposed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat or Sub-

Divisional Officer, Basmat, for the release, if remained to be fulfilled.

28. We allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (C) to the extent

of cancellation of the letter with regard to penalty of Rs.45,052/-.

29. With regard to prayer clause (D), we direct the Collector to hold

enquiry, as disclosed in paragraph 24 above and submit compliance

Cri.W.P.702/2017

report thereof within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this

order.

30. With regard to prayer clause (E), the claim is refused in the light

of observations made in paragraph 25 above.

31. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order

as to costs.

       ( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)                      ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)


vvr