1999 (1) TMI 531 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notification issued u/s 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962.
2. Compatibility of the notification with Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution.
3. Requirement of consultation with Gram Panchayats before issuing the notification.
4. Necessity of providing a hearing to the residents before issuing the notification.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Notification Issued u/s 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962:
The Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, allows the State Government to declare an industrial area as a notified area u/s 16. This provision enables the State Government to equate an industrial area with a notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, by a notification, bypassing the formalities prescribed under the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The Court upheld the legality of the notification issued on 7-9-1993, declaring Kalol Industrial Area as a notified area.

2. Compatibility with Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution:
The appellants contended that the notification was contrary to Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution, introduced by the 73rd and 74th Amendments. The Court clarified that the Gujarat Industrial Development Act operates in a different sphere from Parts IX and IX-A, which deal with local self-government. The industrial areas notified long back in 1972 cannot be considered rural areas under Part IX. The notification under Section 16 does not violate the constitutional scheme as it equates the industrial area with an industrial township under Article 243-Q.

3. Requirement of Consultation with Gram Panchayats:
The appellants argued that the Gram Panchayats should have been consulted before issuing the notification u/s 9(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. The respondents demonstrated that extensive consultations were held with the Panchayats through the District Development Officer before the notifications were issued. The government also issued a resolution to provide 1/3rd of the revenue recovered as consolidated tax by the notified area committee for the benefit of the Gram Panchayats, avoiding any financial prejudice.

4. Necessity of Providing a Hearing to the Residents:
The appellants contended that residents should have been given a hearing before issuing the notification, as it has civil consequences. The Court noted that there had been extensive consultations and consideration of objections before issuing the notification. The Court referenced previous cases where a post-decisional hearing was deemed sufficient compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem. In this case, the long-drawn-out consultations and the issuance of the GR of 30-8-1993 to provide revenue to the Gram Panchayats indicated compliance with natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the notifications issued by the State Government and finding no violation of constitutional provisions or principles of natural justice. There was no order as to costs.