Possession of secondary transit pass and GPS tracking mandatory for transporting finished mineral products to prevent royalty evasion.

The Petitioner, engaged in the transport business, challenged the seizure of his truck (Registration No. MH12-SX-5199) and the subsequent levy of a penalty amounting to ₹2,35,039/- by Revenue Authorities

The vehicle was transporting finished stone products (Grit/Gitti). The Petitioner contended that since Gitti is a finished product and not a mineral, its seizure under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC), 1966, was illegal and in violation of several High Court precedents

Conversely, the State maintained that the seizure was justified as the Petitioner failed to produce a mandatory "secondary transport pass" or demonstrate a valid source of purchase, leading to a reasonable inference of royalty evasion and illegal transportation

1. Whether the authorities have the power to seize vehicles transporting finished stone products like Gitti under the MLRC and associated Rules

2. Whether the Petitioner's failure to carry a secondary transport pass and maintain a GPS system as per Government guidelines justified the seizure and penalty

3. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable given the non-disclosure of material facts and the availability of an alternative remedy

Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, regarding the State's title to minerals and the power to regulate their extraction/removal

Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (Rules 2, 74, 78) which mandate transit passes for minor minerals

The court considered the term "stone" as a minor mineral under the Mines and Minerals (DR) Act, 1957, referencing Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Lal Kunwa Stone Crushers (P) Ltd. and State of Maharashtra vs. Mahalakshmi Stores to establish that crushing boulders into chips (Gitti) does not create a new commercial commodity for royalty purposes

The court applied the principle from State of Orissa vs. Laxminarayan Das regarding the duty of a petitioner to approach the court with "clean hands" and full disclosure

The Court distinguished this case from previous precedents by focusing on the Petitioner’s failure to comply with regulatory safeguards designed to prevent the theft of minerals. While the Petitioner argued Gitti is a "finished product," the Court observed that under current Government guidelines (Circular dated 1st November 2023), even finished products require "secondary transport passes" to prove that royalty was paid at the primary extraction stage

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to provide any information regarding the source of purchase or the mandatory GPS data, which created a reasonable inference that the material was stolen. Furthermore, the court noted a pattern of illegal excavation where material is sold to crushers without royalty; thus, requiring secondary passes is a valid exercise of state power to protect ecology and revenue

The court also found the Petitioner guilty of suppressio veri for failing to mention the lack of documentation during the initial check

The Court further held that since the Petitioner suppressed material facts and had an alternative remedy under Section 247 of the MLRC, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted. The Petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the statutory alternative remedy