Invalidated sand-transport restrictions could not be extended to ready mix plaster, and seizure had to follow mandatory revenue-code procedure.

An administrative prohibition on transporting ready mix plaster could not be sustained where it was based on a Gujarat sand-transport notification and rules that had already been invalidated, and where the goods were a finished product rather than sand. The article also notes that seizure and detention of vehicles under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 must comply with the mandatory requirement of producing seized transport before the Collector or authorised officer within forty-eight hours, with release on prescribed conditions. Non-compliance with that safeguard renders the detention unsustainable and exposes the circular and consequential actions to challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector's circular prohibiting transportation of ready mix plaster could be sustained when it relied on a Gujarat notification and rules that had been invalidated, and when the goods transported were a finished product and not sand; (ii) Whether the seizure and detention of the vehicles complied with the mandatory procedure under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Issue (i): Whether the Collector's circular prohibiting transportation of ready mix plaster could be sustained when it relied on a Gujarat notification and rules that had been invalidated, and when the goods transported were a finished product and not sand.

Analysis: The circular was founded on a Gujarat notification issued in relation to sand transport. The material in question was ready mix plaster, a processed final product attracting GST, and the record did not show any prohibition against its transport in Maharashtra. The underlying Gujarat rule and the notification relied upon had already been declared invalid, so the administrative restriction could not be extended to finished goods merely because sand was one component of the product.

Conclusion: The circular and the consequential action based on it were liable to be quashed, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure and detention of the vehicles complied with the mandatory procedure under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Analysis: Section 48(8)(2) required seized means of transport to be produced before the Collector or authorised officer within forty-eight hours and contemplated release on prescribed conditions. The record disclosed non-compliance with that mandatory procedure. Seizure without adherence to the statutory safeguard caused prejudice and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The seizure and detention of the vehicles were unsustainable for breach of the mandatory statutory procedure.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned circular and consequential actions were set aside, and the seized vehicles and goods were directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative restriction or seizure based on a notification or rule that has lost force cannot be applied to a different finished product, and seizure of transport under the revenue code must strictly follow the prescribed statutory procedure.

---