JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, dated 2.9.2016 imposing penalty on the petitioner under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for the sake of brevity). 3. According to the petitioner, the truck of the petitioner was seized under Section 48(8) of the Code and the petitioner was directed to pay the penalty in the proceedings under Section 48 (7) on the ground that the sand transported in his vehicle was not covered by tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism. It is stated that the respondents could not have confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner under Section 48(8) of the Code and also could not have initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 48(7) for not covering the sand, during transportation. It is stated that confiscation or seizure of the vehicle could be made only if a person illegally extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any minerals. It is stated that penalty proceedings could be initiated against a person, who without lawful authority, extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral. It is stated that the petitioner was legally carrying the mineral in his vehicle and merely because the mineral was not covered by tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism, the respondents could not have invoked the provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code. 4. Smt. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has supported the action of the respondents. It is stated that it would be necessary for the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Additional Collector under the provisions of the Code. It is stated that in stead of availing the alternate remedy, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, it is necessary for a person to cover the mineral while transporting the same, but the petitioner did not cover the sand that was transported in the vehicle and hence the vehicle was seized and the penalty proceedings were initiated. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, it is necessary for a person to cover the mineral while transporting the same, but the petitioner did not cover the sand that was transported in the vehicle and hence the vehicle was seized and the penalty proceedings were initiated. It is stated that penal action could be initiated against the petitioner for violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. 5. Admittedly, action is taken against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code, as could be seen from the impugned order, dated 2.9.2016. The order refers to the provisions of Section 48 of the Code. The relevant provisions of Section 48 of the Code read thus :- 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 bunds of the fields or on any other plea), nallas, creeks, riverbeds, 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 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 : 48(8) (1) : Without prejudice to the provision of subsection (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 or disposed of from any mine, quarry or other place referred to in subsection (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. It is apparent from a reading of the provisions of Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code that the said provisions could be invoked only if a person extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral without lawful authority. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was carrying the mineral without lawful authority. The only grievance of the respondents is that the mineral carried by the petitioner was not covered and the petitioner had breached the provisions of Section 67 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. It is apparent from a reading of the provisions of Section 48(8) of the Code that the machinery or equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, pickingup or disposal of minor minerals could be seized. The vehicle of the petitioner could have been seized only if the petitioner had illegally extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of mineral from any mine or quarry. Such is not, however, the case of the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioner had violated the general conditions pertaining to the grant of clearances, as referred to, in Rule 67(8) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. According to the said rule, minerals could be transported by covering the trucks or tractors with tarpaulin or other suitable mechanism so that no spillage of mineral or dust takes place. If the respondents were of the view that the petitioner had infringed one of the general conditions in Rule 67(8) of the Rules of 2013, the respondents were free to take appropriate steps against the petitioner under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the Rules of 2013. The respondents, however, imposed penalty on the petitioner under Section 48(7) and confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner under Section 48(8) of the Code. The respondents were not empowered to take action against the petitioner under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code for not covering the sand with tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism. The provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code could have been invoked only if it was found that the petitioner had without lawful authority, extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of mineral. The provisions of Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code could have been invoked only if it was found that the petitioner had without lawful authority, extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of mineral. Since the petitioner had not, without lawful authority, done anything for which action could have been initiated against the petitioner under Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Code, the impugned order of seizure as well as the order imposing penalty under Sections 48(7) are liable to be set aside. As the orders suffer from a jurisdictional error, the objection against the maintainability of the petition on the ground of alternate remedy is overruled. 6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 2.9.2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the truck of the petitioner within three days. It is needless to mention that, if so advised, the respondents may take appropriate action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.