Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SOLAPUR MIDC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION ETC
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 14 1996 SCALE (5)483
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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the 1961 Act the State Government has not yet withdrawn the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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.