JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. 2. This is the petition filed by these two petitioners with the basic prayer, “(C) To issue direction against the respondents to release the confiscated vehicle of the HGV-TIPPER bearing registration No. MH-44/7988, Chassis No. MAT 448117D2B01451, Engine No. BS91803231B6331195 by issuing writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be, in the interest of justice.” 3. It would be necessary to refer to certain facts. The petitioner No. 1 is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. one HGV-TIPPER carrying the registration No. MH-44-7988. The petitioner No. 1 by obtaining loan from finance company namely Tata Motors Finance, purchased the vehicle. The vehicle is registered with one insurance company Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company. Though it is stated that the petitioner No. 2 Mr. Madan Devidas Chavan is now plying the vehicle and there is some agreement between the parties about purchase of the vehicle and the copy of the document is placed on record at Exhibit ‘A’. In view of the fact that the vehicle stands in the name of petitioner No. 1 and in view of the fact that even the said document Exhibit ‘A’ states that, certain financial burden of payment of the installments is to be borne by the petitioner No. 2 and after clearing of those dues, the necessary steps would be taken for change of owner submitting it to the transport authorities, as such we are not inclined to consider any grievance of petitioner No. 2 and we are concentrating only on the grievance of petitioner No. 1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1 submitted that, the vehicle is used for transport of the sand. He submitted that, the petitioner No. 1 was granted a permit to transport the sand. The invoices for the transport periodically are issued and these invoices referred to the invoice number, name of the driver, name of the vehicle owner, cell phone numbers of the driver and the owner as well the date of permission to carry out the transport and the distance along with the bar code. 5. The learned counsel then submitted that, on 10-7-2017 the vehicle of the petitioner No. 1 was apprehended at a spot near Kandewadi on Dindrud to Mohkhed road. 5. The learned counsel then submitted that, on 10-7-2017 the vehicle of the petitioner No. 1 was apprehended at a spot near Kandewadi on Dindrud to Mohkhed road. The counsel for the petitioner then by inviting our attention to a report made to the Taluka Executive Officer dated 14-7-2017 submitted that, it is informed to the Taluka Executive Magistrate through the Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Dindrud that the vehicle was apprehended at about 07.00 p.m. while the police staff was on a patrolling duty. The police officials on inspection of the vehicle found that the vehicle was carrying the sand approximately weighing 05 brass. The enquiry was made with the driver. The driver was asked to show the invoice. The driver replied to the enquiry informing that his name is Datta Vaijainath Kadam and expressed inability to show the invoice. And then it is stated that, the vehicle is seized and kept in the premises of Dindrud Police Station. 6. The counsel for the petitioner then submitted that, by taking some legal assistance, the petitioners filed application before the learned Magistrate, Majalgaon for seeking release of the vehicle under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Perusal of the copy of the application placed on record Exhibit ‘D’ show that, it is very specifically stated in the application that, there is no registration of offence. Then in the application it is prayed for release of the vehicle by issuing directions to the police inspector attached to Dindrud Police Station. The learned counsel then invited our attention to order passed by the learned Magistrate F.C., Majalgaon dated 7-9-2017. The counsel submitted that as no offence was registered, the application sought to be withdrawn and the same was disposed of as withdrawn. 7. The learned counsel then invited our attention to a report submitted by the police station authority Dindrud to the Magistrate. It is interesting to read the report as it states that, on 14-7-2017 report is made to the Tahsildar Dharur and the Tahsildar is requested to take appropriate decision. It is clearly stated in the report that, no offence is registered in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner then placed heavy reliance on the unreported as well as reported Judgments of this Court. Copies of these Judgments placed on record. 8. It is clearly stated in the report that, no offence is registered in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner then placed heavy reliance on the unreported as well as reported Judgments of this Court. Copies of these Judgments placed on record. 8. The learned counsel then submitted that, the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 936 = 2010 (1) ALL MR 842, dealt with the relevant provisions namely, section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Whereas the Division Bench in the matter of Rumao Constructions and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 MhLJ Online (Cri.) 34 = 2010 (6) Bom.C.R. 236 , dealt with the provisions namely section 48(7) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the section 48(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the sake of brevity) specifically directs that if any vehicle is apprehended for an illegal excavation of shifting of minerals to one place to other, removing it, is to be presented either before the District Collector or any officer authorized by the District Collector who is not below the rank of Deputy Collector within 48 hours of such seizure of the vehicle. He submitted that, the provision then permits the release of vehicle by imposing conditions and on an undertaking with the personal surety. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities utterly failed to take any of such step which is referred to in the provision namely section 48(2) of the code. 9. The counsel then submits that the vehicle is lying at Police Station, Dindrud right from July 2017. The petitioner is required to run from piller to post. The petitioner is deprived of the earning from plying of the vehicle. The learned counsel submits that, the respondent authorities may take appropriate steps if the authorities are of the opinion that there is breach of provisions of law. But detaining the vehicle and keeping it in the premises of Police Station for a considerable long period is clearly an unsustainable act. As such the learned counsel pray for the directions to release the vehicle expeditiously. 10. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the application with the help of replies filed on record. But detaining the vehicle and keeping it in the premises of Police Station for a considerable long period is clearly an unsustainable act. As such the learned counsel pray for the directions to release the vehicle expeditiously. 10. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the application with the help of replies filed on record. One reply is filed by respondent No. 1. A statement is made in the reply that, on 10-7- 2017 the vehicle was apprehended and the enquiry was made and the driver was unable to show any royalty receipt. Then a statement is made that, “on the same day and subsequently an intimation was given to office of Tahsildar, Dindrud.” It refers to the copies of the intimation. Along with the reply the copy of report made to the Taluka Executive Magistrate is annexed to which we have already referred to, it is on 14-7-2017 i.e. after four days of the detaining of vehicle and keeping it in the police station premises. Though it is stated in the reply that, on that day report was made to Taluka Executive Magistrate, there is nothing on record to show that on the very day the report was made. The other document placed along with the reply is a report made by the Special Squad to the Sub-Inspector attached to Police Station, Dindrud dated 10-2-2017. It only states that, in the vehicle number MH-44/7988, 05 brass sand was found. Then there is a reference to another vehicle and it is stated that, the vehicle drivers were unable to show any invoice receipt and necessary action be taken. So, whatever stated in the affidavit about making report to the Taluka Executive Magistrate on the very day, is not a statement in consonance with the record. 11. Now interestingly the copy of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is placed on record. On repeated reading of these regulation, we could not find any such provision authorizing the police officials to detain the vehicle and keep it in their custody for indefinite period. The power vest with the Government by the rules framed exercising its powers only permit the authority to detain the vehicle with the police authorities for 48 hours. Thereafter, the release of vehicle is left to the discretion of Collector or the officer authorized by the Collector. The power vest with the Government by the rules framed exercising its powers only permit the authority to detain the vehicle with the police authorities for 48 hours. Thereafter, the release of vehicle is left to the discretion of Collector or the officer authorized by the Collector. The copy of the ordinance dated 12-6-2015 is placed on record along with affidavit filed by the Naib Tahsildar, Dharur. The reply of the Police officer- respondent No. 1 fails to show that the vehicle was presented before the Collector or before the Competent authority within 48 hours. 12. On going through the reply filed by both the respondents along with its annexure, we could not find any statement to the effect that a seizure panchanama was drawn while detaining the vehicle and keeping it in the Dindrud Police Station premises. In our opinion the provision of section 48 of the Code itself is with an object that the vehicle must be presented before the competent authority by the police authority within 48 hours, and by taking appropriate sureties and imposing certain conditions, the vehicle can be released so that the owner can ply the vehicle and it is not made to suffer the decay by keeping the vehicle idle for indefinite period. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner was justified in submitting before this Court that the action by the respondent authorities is clearly unsustainable and without any support of the provisions of law, and it is only an act of high-handedness of the respondent authorities. 14. The reply of the Naib Tahsildar is not only interesting but is worth referring. In the reply it is stated that, in view of the seizure of the vehicle and in view of the fact that the vehicle driver/owner was not possessing the valid permit and as the vehicle driver/owner had no authority to legally possess the sand, the deponent by order dated 24-7-2017 imposed fine of Rs. 1,91,674/- to the petitioner for illegal excavation of mines and mineral. 15. We have gone through that order dated 24-2-2017 which is placed on record along with the affidavit as Exhibit R-2. In the order, it is stated that, a panchanama of detaining the vehicle which was carried illegal stand is drawn. 1,91,674/- to the petitioner for illegal excavation of mines and mineral. 15. We have gone through that order dated 24-2-2017 which is placed on record along with the affidavit as Exhibit R-2. In the order, it is stated that, a panchanama of detaining the vehicle which was carried illegal stand is drawn. Now nowhere we find copy of such a panchanaama either drawn by police officials or as stated in the order drawn by the Circle Officer, Telgaon and we have already referred to this aspect. It is then stated in the order that, on enquiry with the petitioner No. 1 who is owner of the vehicle, the owner was carrying invoice and this is stated in the report of Circle Officer. Then it states that, in the report of the police station officials while the vehicle was apprehended the driver was unable to produce any invoice and as such there was illegal transportation of 06 brass of sand. The report which is referred to in the order of the police authority, makes reference of 05 brass sand. The Tahsildar refers that, there was illegal transportation of 06 brass sand and then he imposes fine for transporting the said illegal sand of 06 brass quantity and directs to deposit the amount with Treasury to the tune of Rs. 1,91,674/- as a total amount including penalty and the royalty. 16. We really failed to understand, if the officer states that there was the invoice with the owner of the vehicle presented with the Circle Officer and when he also refers that there was a report of a police official when it was about 05 brass of sand, how come the officer concerned imposed penalty for illegal transportation of the sand to the tune of 06 brass. The learned counsel was justified in placing heavy reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Rumao Constructions and others vs. State of Maharashtra. The facts of the present matter and the facts of Rmao Construction’s matter are nearly identical. The Division Bench was to open its order with these words, “The above Petition exemplifies total high-handed and arbitrary action of the authorities in seizing two vehicles of the Petitioners without following due procedure of law.” In the present petition also the action of the respondent authorities is showing their highhandedness and arbitrary action. The Division Bench was to open its order with these words, “The above Petition exemplifies total high-handed and arbitrary action of the authorities in seizing two vehicles of the Petitioners without following due procedure of law.” In the present petition also the action of the respondent authorities is showing their highhandedness and arbitrary action. As we have stated that, the facts are nearly identical it may not be necessary to other factual aspect in the Judgment of Rumao Constructions (supra). It would be useful to refer to the other observations of the Division Bench for the reason considering the high-handed and arbitrary action of the authorities, the Division bench issued certain directions ; “15. In view of the fact that we have found the action of the authorities to be totally high handed, arbitrary and illegal, we would be failing in our duty, if we do not direct the higher officials of the revenue and the police departments to take corrective measures so that such actions are not repeated in future. We therefore direct the Collector, Thane to conduct an inquiry in respect of the seizure of the two vehicles without any procedure being followed by the officials working under him and more especially the officials of the flying squad.” “16. We also direct the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane to make an inquiry into the conduct of the officials/officers of the Kashimira Police Station in keeping the said two vehicles in their custody in the precincts of the Versova Police Chowky without making any record in that respect right from 27th February 2010 till they were ordered to be handed over to the Petitioners by our order dated 23rd April 2010.” “17. Both the Collector and the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the Police are directed to take appropriate departmental action against the concerned officials/officers who were held responsible for seizure of the two vehicles. On such action being taken, an entry should be made in the service book of the concerned officials/officers. The said process to be completed within a period of eight weeks from date and compliance report of the action taken against the concerned officials/officers by both the Collector and the Deputy Commissioner of Police to be submitted to this Court in the name of the learned Registrar General of this Court within four weeks thereafter.” 17-18. The said process to be completed within a period of eight weeks from date and compliance report of the action taken against the concerned officials/officers by both the Collector and the Deputy Commissioner of Police to be submitted to this Court in the name of the learned Registrar General of this Court within four weeks thereafter.” 17-18. Accordingly we direct the Collector, Beed to conduct an enquiry in respect of the seizure of the vehicle without any procedure being followed by the officials working under him and more especially the officers of the flying squad. Then we direct the Superintendent of Police, Beed to make an enquiry into the conduct of the officials or the officers attached to Dindrud Police Station in keeping the vehicle in their custody in the premises of Dindrud Police Station without making any record in that respect right from 09th July, 2017 till the petitioner approaching to this Court i.e. till 15-11-2017. 19. Then we direct the Collector and Superintendent of Police to take appropriate departmental action against the concerned officers or officials who were responsible for seizure of the vehicle. About the action an entry be taken in the service book of the officials or officers. The said process be completed within eight (08) weeks from today and compliance report of the action taken against the concerned officials/officers by the Collector, Beed and the Superintendent of Police, Beed be submitted to this Court in the name of Registrar of this Court within four (04) weeks thereafter. 20. Needless to state further that the respondent authorities to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith. On the condition that the petitioner should bring back the vehicle if and when required or on such order to be passed by any competent Court within one week from the said order. 21. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this Court. 22. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor to inform and appraise the order of this Court to the Collector, Beed and Superintendent of Police, Beed. Order accordingly.