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 It  was also  maintained that  under Section 56 of the 1961  Act the State Government has not yet withdrawn the industrial estate/industrial  area from  the purview  of the Industrial  Development   Corporation  as  it  has  not  yet recorded satisfaction  in terms 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.