JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the seizure of the vehicle, i.e. tractor and trolley, bearing registration No. MH30E7222, owned by one Suresh Iche, carrying gitti (metal stone) from the destination of the stone crusher of the petitioner to the destination of the purchaser and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,150/- in exercise of the power conferred under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 2. On 26-10-2018, this Court passed an order as under: "As Shri V.G. Bhise, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, Shri A.S. Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate is discharged. 2. The petitioner to remove office objections within two weeks. 3. We find that the matter is pending since the year 2004. Manish, claiming to be son of the petitioner has filed Civil Application CAW No. 2641/2018 seeking leave to bring on record his mother, himself and his sisters. The application appears to be within time, hence, it is allowed. The necessary amendment be carried out within two weeks. 4. By impugned order passed under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the petitioner was called upon to deposit penalty of Rs. 2,100/- and royalty of Rs. 50/-. Thus, total amount recoverable is Rs. 2,150/-. 5. We direct the petitioners coming on record to deposit that amount with the registry of this Court within four weeks. 6. Civil Application No. 2641 of 2018 is disposed of. 7. List the petition for final hearing on 29.11.2018." In view of the aforesaid order, the vehicle was released and the amount of penalty and royalty of Rs. 2,150/- has been deposited in this Court. The question is about the competency of the respondents to ask for the source of gitti which was being carried in the vehicle from the destination of the stone crusher of the petitioner to the destination of the purchaser. 3. Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to which our attention is invited by both the counsels, reads as under: "48. 3. Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to which our attention is invited by both the counsels, reads as under: "48. Government title to mines and minerals (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 construction 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 officers not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf, to pay penalty of an amount up to five times the market value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be." In terms of the aforesaid provision, 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, 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 be liable to pay penalty in terms of the said provision. This provision has been interpreted by the Division bench of this Court in its judgment dated 19-3-2010 delivered in Writ Petition No. 4077 of 2009 (Pralhad S/o. Vishnu Wayade and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others), wherein it is held that, "Considering the purpose for which the said provision is made, viz. for unlawful removal of minerals and not for finished products, the action taken by the respondents under the same is a total usurpation of authority and is completely mala fide in law." 4. In the present case, it is not the charge that the petitioner has extracted the raw material (Kapchi) from any working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas, nallas, creeks, river-beds, etc., as contemplated by the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In the present case, it is not the charge that the petitioner has extracted the raw material (Kapchi) from any working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas, nallas, creeks, river-beds, etc., as contemplated by the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was carrying the finished product of gitti (metal stone) collected from the stone crusher of the petitioner, for which no transit pass is required. The question as to whether the transporter was required to explain his source of metal stone or extraction of clay has been dealt with in para 7 of the aforesaid decision, which is reproduced below: "7. As regards the justification offered by the respondents for requiring transit passes, if at all the respondents in reality have wished to see if the clay extracted is being properly used for the purposes of manufacturing bricks, then for verifying the same they could have resorted to a simple procedure for inspection as may be authorized by law. Having regard to the same, it is wholly unnecessary to go in the question of the action taken by respondents being innocent as observed by the Apex Court in a decision in the case of Smt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India and another reported in (1979) 2 SCC 491 : AIR 1979 SC 49 ) wherein while considering the question of malice in law by quoting the observations of Viscount Haldane in the decision in the case of Shearer v. Shields reported in (1914) AC 808, it has been observed by Apex Court in paragraph No. 5 of the said decision: "5. ....Malice in law is, however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it as follows in Shearer v. Shields: A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly and in that sense innocently. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly and in that sense innocently. Thus malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause." In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, it is not possible for us to sustain the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5-7-2004 passed by the respondent No. 2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 7. The petitioner has deposited the amount of penalty and royalty of Rs. 2,150/- in this Court. The same shall be refunded to the petitioner.