Bombay High Court
Sudarshan Rajkumar Badgujar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr ... on 14 February, 2023
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M. M. Sathaye
ppn 1 907 & 911.wp-1913.23 & ors.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 2023
Gaurav S/o Anil Babad .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1647 OF 2023
Sudarshan s/o Rajkumar Badgujar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2023
Kaluram s/o Baban Satav .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
---
Mr.Bhansaheb Deshmukh a/w Mr.Anshuman Deshmukh i/by Mr.Deepak
Pote for the petitioners in all petitions.
Mrs.M.S. Bane, AGP for the respondent nos.1 & 2 in Writ Petition
No.1913 of 2023.
Mrs.S.S. Bhende, AGP for the respondent nos.1 & 2 in Writ Petition
No.1647 of 2023 & Writ Petition No.1645 of 2023.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 14th February 2023
P.C.:-
. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.1
& 2 in all petitions. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
ppn 2 907 & 911.wp-1913.23 & ors.doc
2. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order of penalty
dated 10th January 2023, impugned notice dated 14th January 2023 passed
by Respondents- Tahsildar, Malegaon, District Nashik and the impugned
notice dated 4th January 2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Chandwad, District
Nashik and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the said
authorities to release their vehicles i.e. Truck bearing registration
No.MH-18 BA-0668 in Writ Petition No.1913 of 2023, Truck bearing
registration No.MH-34 BG-4041 in Writ Petition No.1647 of 2023 and
Truck bearing registration No.MH-12 BG-1387 in Writ Petition No.1645
of 2023 of the petitioners.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are engaged in the
business of transport of sand and for that purpose, the aforesaid vehicles
are used. It is the case of the petitioners that they were transporting the
sand from Village Nizar, District Tapi in the State of Gujarat to the State
of Maharashtra.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said vehicles were
intercepted by the respondent no.2 inside boundary of the State of
Maharashtra and the impugned the show cause notice/order of penalty
has been passed by exercising powers under Section 48 (7) & (8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and as a consequence thereof,
Petitioners' said vehicles involved in transport are withheld.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioner cannot be penalised by passing the impugned order of penalty
and impugned notices and actions are illegal. In support of his
ppn 3 907 & 911.wp-1913.23 & ors.doc
submission, learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment dated
7th April 2022 delivered by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the batch
of the petitions bearing Writ Petition No.2078 of 2021 in case of
M/s.Shree Rajesh Pathak Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and also the
subsequent judgment dated 26th April 2022 delivered by the Aurangabad
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4397 of 2022 in case of Vishal
Babasaheb Dube @ Dhube Vs.The State of Maharashtra as also the
latest order dated 22nd December 2022 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.10687 of 2022 in the case of Sachin Vishram Porje Vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Anr. in support of his case.
6. Learned AGP for the State, could not distinguish the facts of
these cases from the aforesaid judgments taking consistent view about
illegality of such actions and also could not dispute that penalty sought by
the Respondents from the Petitioners or impugned notices are ultimately
based on the circular dated 5th February 2021 which is held bad in law in
the aforesaid judgments.
7. In our view, the facts of these cases are similar to the facts of
the judgments referred above and therefore, the impugned order or the
impugned action and consequent withholding of the vehicles of the
petitioners cannot be sustained.
8. We therefore pass following order :-
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) of the
respective writ petitions and impugned order and notices as
mentioned in paragraph 2 above are quashed and set aside.
ppn 4 907 & 911.wp-1913.23 & ors.doc
(ii) The respondents are directed to release the petitioners' vehicles as
described in paragraph 2 above within a period of one week from
the date of communication of this order.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(iv) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
M.M. SATHAYE, J. R.D. DHANUKA, J.
