Solapur
MIDC Industries Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [1996] INSC 868
(26 July 1996)
Punchhi,
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Venkataswami K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 14 1996 SCALE (5)483
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
SLP
No.14830/94 and SLP No.17325/94:
A
Notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporation Act,1949 (hereafter called the 1949 Act) dated April 23,
1992 published on April 28, 1992, was put to challenge separately by the
respective two special leave petitioners before the High Court of Bombay
whereby the industrial estate/area where they had put up their industries was
brought within the territorial limits of the Solapur Municipal Corporation, Solapur.
The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions in limine on identical
grounds. One such ground was that admittedly no flaw could be found in the
observance of the statutory provisions leading to the enlargement of the limits
of the municipal corporation. This part of the order sustains by itself
unquestionably. The second ground of challenge failed inasmuch as the writ
petitions could not point out any conflict between the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,
1961 (hereafter referred to as the 1961 Act), as according to the High Court
the two statutes had separate operational fields. Such view of the High Court
has been challenged basically on the point that the objects sought to be
achieved under the 1961 Act, were almost the same as that of the 1949 Act
inasmuch as both go to provide civic amenities, maintenance and upkeep of
public places etc. as statutorily enumerated in the respective two statutes. It
was also maintained that under Section 56 of the 1961 Act the State Government
has not yet withdrawn the industrial estate/industrial area from the purview of
the Industrial Development Corporation as it has not yet recorded satisfaction
in terms thereof as to its purpose having been substantially achieved.
Section
56 of the 1961 Act reads as follows:
"Where
the State Government is satisfied that in respect of any particular industrial
estate or industrial area, or any part thereof, the purpose for which the
Corporation was established under this Act has been substantially achieved so
as to render the continued existence of such estate of area or part thereof
under the Corporation unnecessary, the State Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, declare that such industrial estate or industrial area or
part thereof has been removed from the jurisdiction of the Corporation. The
State Government may also make such other incidental arrangements for the
administration of such estate or area or part thereof as the circumstances
necessitate." It is not disputed that since the State Government has not
yet withdrawn the industrial estate/industrial area concerned from the hold of
the Corporation, the provisions of the 1961 Act continue to apply. The Preamble
thereof is suggestive of its objects sought to be achieved namely the orderly establishment
in industrial areas and industrial estates of industries, and to assist
generally in the organisation thereof, and for that purpose to establish the
Industrial Development Corporation and for purposes connected with the matters
therewith. The purpose of the 1949 Act on the other hand, as is suggestive from
its Preamble, is to provide for the establishment of Municipal Corporations
with a view to ensure a better municipal government of the cities in which
municipal corporations are set up. These being the basic differences as to the
ambit of the two statutes, the High Court, in our view, rightly arrived at the
conclusion that there was inter se no conflict between the two. There may be
certain areas such as provision for civil amenities in which there is identity
of purpose but these are ancillary and incidental to the main purpose of the
respective two statutes. The suggestion drawn from the Assembly debates, to
which our attention has been drawn, while passing the 1961 Act, suggestive of
the fact that the industrial estates or industrial areas on ripening were meant
to be kept under the purview of the 1961 Act until some civic administration in
the form of a Panchayat or Municipality could take over is not supported by any
statutory provision available in the respective two Acts. As said before the
topics of legislation being different, there was no question of their rubbing
against each other because being enacted under two different legislative
fields.
We
therefore find no merit in these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2