9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Notification for the formation of Industrial Townships. 2. Decision of the State Government on constituting Industrial Townships. 3. Conflict between the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (BPMC Act) and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act). 4. Levy of property taxes by NMMC without rendering services. 5. Levy of municipal taxes in areas where NMMC does not render services. 6. Inclusion of TTC area within the municipal limits of NMMC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Notification for the formation of Industrial Townships: The petitioners questioned whether the Government of Maharashtra could indefinitely postpone issuing a notification for forming Industrial Townships after the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992, and the Amendment to the 'Act of 1965' effective from May 31, 1994. The Court noted that the discretion to declare an area as an Industrial Township is vested in the Governor, considering factors like the size of the area and the municipal services provided or proposed to be provided by the Industrial Establishment. Consequently, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to declare the MIDC area as an Industrial Township. II. Decision of the State Government on constituting Industrial Townships: The petitioners argued that the State Government's decision not to constitute TTC and TBIA as Industrial Townships while allowing other areas to do so was not bona fide. The Court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the discretion to form Industrial Townships lies with the State Government, and the petitioners cannot compel the government to exercise this discretion through a writ of mandamus. III. Conflict between BPMC Act and MID Act: The petitioners contended that the BPMC Act should not prevail over the MID Act in case of a conflict. The Court held that both acts have distinct fields of operation and there is no interse conflict between them. The BPMC Act empowers the Municipal Corporation to levy and collect taxes within its jurisdiction, while the MID Act allows MIDC to levy fees and service charges for the amenities it provides. The Court emphasized that the provisions of both acts should be construed harmoniously. IV. Levy of property taxes by NMMC without rendering services: The petitioners argued that NMMC could not levy property taxes in the Industrial area without rendering any services, as it is the obligation of MIDC to provide necessary infrastructure and services. The Court held that the concept of tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law, and it is not a payment for services rendered. Therefore, the principle of quid pro quo does not apply to taxes levied by NMMC. V. Levy of municipal taxes in areas where NMMC does not render services: The petitioners claimed that NMMC could not levy municipal taxes in areas where it does not render services. The Court reiterated that the levy of taxes is not contingent upon the provision of specific services to the taxpayers. The Court also noted that the MIDC and NMMC had entered into an MOU on December 1, 2005, for handing over the maintenance of infrastructure facilities within the TTC area to NMMC, and this arrangement was in accordance with the provisions of the MID Act. VI. Inclusion of TTC area within the municipal limits of NMMC: The petitioners contended that the TTC area within the jurisdiction of MIDC does not fall within the municipal limits of NMMC as per the Notification dated December 17, 1991. The Court examined the draft and final notifications and concluded that the entire area of the revenue villages mentioned in the notifications, including the TTC Industrial area, forms part of the municipal limits of NMMC. The Court found no discrepancy in the boundaries set out in the final notification and held that the MIDC area is part of the NMMC's municipal limits. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had not made out any justifiable ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file appeals under Section 406 of the BPMC Act within eight weeks, considering their bona fide prosecution of remedies in the form of this petition.
|
