Mod. Haneef Abbasali vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5174 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mod. Haneef Abbasali vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 2 September, 2025

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

2025:BHC-AUG:23507-DB
                                                                                       47.WP.5779.2025.doc



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 5779 OF 2025

          Mod. Haneef Abbasali                                                   ...Petitioner

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                        ...Respondents
                                           ***
           Mr. Apparao Bhimrao Kharosekar, for Petitioner.
           Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State.
                                           ***
                                         CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                                   Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
                                                     DATE        : 02nd SEPTEMBER 2025.

          ORAL ORDER : (PER : MANISH PITALE, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

AGP for the respondents.

2. The principal contention raised in the present case is that

seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Hyva Tipper by the

respondent No.5 - Police is unauthorized and illegal. Consequently, the

petitioner seeks a direction for release of the vehicle. The learned

counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court in the case of Gufran Khan Rahmatullah Khan Vs. The

State of Maharashtra & Ors.1

3. The material on record shows that the said vehicle of the 1 Judgment and order dated 13th March 2019, passed in Writ Petition No.8424 of 2018.

47.WP.5779.2025.doc

petitioner was intercepted on 07th April 2025 by the Police. It is

alleged that the vehicle was illegally transporting minor minerals

(sand). The vehicle was seized and kept in the premises of the City

Police Station, Omerga, District Osmanabad (now Dharashiv). The

document placed on record on behalf of the respondents show that

thereafter, a revenue officer i.e. the Circle Officer executed a

panchnama, recording that the minor mineral was being illegally

transported. Thereupon, appropriate proceedings under Section 48 of

the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code) were undertaken,

which culminated in an order dated 21 st April 2025, passed by the

respondent - Sub Divisional Officer imposing a penalty on the

petitioner of Rs.4,71,565/-. This was based on findings rendered

against the petitioner as regards illegal extraction and transportation

of the said minor mineral. It is an admitted position that an appeal

filed by the petitioner under Section 247 of the aforesaid Code was

dismissed on 01st July 2025 by the respondent - Collector. It appears

that thereafter, the petitioner has yet not filed a further appeal

available under the said Code.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner essentially relies

upon the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,

47.WP.5779.2025.doc

followed subsequently by this Court in other petitions also, to contend

that since the seizure of the vehicle by the Police is itself unauthorized,

the vehicle ought to be released forthwith.

5. On the other hand, the learned AGP submits that the

Collector has dismissed the appeal and in the absence of any further

challenge, the order of the respondent - Sub Divisional Officer has

been confirmed, thereby requiring the petitioner to pay the said

penalty amount. It is submitted that upon the vehicle being

intercepted by the Police, it was merely kept in the police station and

thereupon, the revenue officers have taken appropriate proceedings

under the said Code.

6. We have perused the aforesaid judgment of the Division

Bench in the case of Gufran Khan Rahmatullah Khan Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. (supra). In a similar situation the police seized the

vehicle without registration of an offence, it was held that such seizure

by Police was illegal and an order was granted in favour of the

petitioners therein.

7. We find that in the facts of the present case, it would not

be appropriate to grant relief to the petitioner unconditionally. As on

47.WP.5779.2025.doc

today, the order of the respondent - Sub Divisional Officer as

confirmed by the respondent - Collector in appeal shows findings

against the petitioner with regard to such illegal extraction and

transportation of the minor mineral. Penalty has been imposed.

Although the respondents and particularly the Police Authority have

not been able to justify action of the police in seizing the said vehicle,

we are inclined to allow the present petition, although by imposing

appropriate conditions.

8. In this regard a perusal of Section 48 (8)(2) of the Code

shows that if the Collector or any revenue officer authorised by the

Collector seizes such means of transport concerned with illegal

extraction and transport of minor minerals, the Collector or an officer

not below the rank of Deputy Collector can order seizure of such

vehicle upon specific conditions being satisfied as enumerated in the

said provision.

9. In Writ jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that this Court

also can impose similar conditions or even additional conditions on the

petitioner for releasing the vehicle, particularly when respondent - Sub

Divisional Officer, as the original authority and the respondent -

Collector as the Appellate Authority, have returned findings against the

47.WP.5779.2025.doc

petitioner with regard the such illegal extraction and transport of

minor mineral. We also find that, as on today, the petitioner has not

challenged the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector.

10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on

instructions, submits that the petitioner would immediately file an

appeal before the Commissioner as provided under the said Code, and

therefore, this Court may consider directing release of the vehicle.

11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in the

following terms :

(A) The subject vehicle of the petitioner shall be released by the respondent No.5 on satisfaction of the condition that the petitioner files an appeal before the Commissioner within two weeks from today and produces proof of the same before the respondent -

Collector, who would then intimate the respondent No.5 - Police Official about filing of such appeal. (B) The petitioner shall file an undertaking and furnish personal bond on affidavit before this Court as also the Commissioner in the proposed appeal for an amount not exceeding of a market value of the aforesaid vehicle, stating that the said vehicle shall not be used in future for any unauthorized extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking

47.WP.5779.2025.doc

up or disposal of the minor minerals or transportion of the same. Such an undertaking and personal bond shall be furnished within the aforesaid period of time.

(C) The petitioner is further directed, as a condition for release of the vehicle, to deposit 25% of the penalty amount along with the proposed appeal before the Commissioner and to produce proof of the same before respondent No.5 for enabling release of the vehicle.

12. We make it clear that unless all the conditions imposed

hereinabove, are appropriately satisfied by the petitioner, the vehicle

shall not be released by the respondent No.5.

13. In the abovementioned undertaking on affidavit, the

petitioner shall also state that he shall produce the vehicle before the

Commissioner where the proposed appeal is to be filed, if and when

directed.

         (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)                      (MANISH PITALE, J.)