Jharkhand High Court
Bhalotia Auto Products Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1441 of 2013
-----
Bhalotia Auto Products Limited, a Company registered
under Companies Act, having registered office at
Muneshwar Bhawan, West Contractor's Area, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur through its Director Chandu Lal Agarwal, son
of late Matadin Agarwal, resident of Holding No.10,
Contractor's Area, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur,
District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur (Jharkhand)
.... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Municipal Council, Adityapur through its Chief
Executive Officer, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District
Saraikela Kharsawan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation,
Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikela
Kharsawan.
4. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority,
through its Managing Director, having its office at Vikash
Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District
Saraikela Kharsawan. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.866 of 2011
----
A.S.L. Enterprises Limited (A.S.L. Motors, a unit of A.S.L.
Enterprises Limited, post merger/amalgamation by virtue
of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court's order dated 30.06.2008),
having its registered office at 7B, Kiran Shankar Roy Road,
Punwani Chambers, Kolkata 700 001, through its Director
Mr. Dilip Kumar Goyal, Son of Late Hansraj Goyal,
Resident of 2 CH Area, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur,
district - Singhbhum East, Jharkhand.
.... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Municipal Council, Adityapur through its Chief
Executive Officer, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District -
Saraikela Kharsawan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation,
Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikela
Kharsawan.
4. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority,
through its Managing Director, having its office at Vikash
Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District -
Saraikela Kharsawan. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1081 of 2018
----
M/s Acropoly Metal Industries Private Limited through its
Managing Director, Sri Deepak Goyal, aged about 48 years,
son of Sri P.P.Goyal, having its office at M-37 and M-40(P),
4th phase, Adityapur Industrial Area Development
Authority, situate at Village Bara, Post Gamharia, Police
Station Gamharia, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.
.... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Adityapur Municipal Corporation, Seraikella-
Kharsawan, through its Chief Executive Officer, officiating
from its office situate in Municipal Corporation Building,
Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur,
District - Saraikela Kharsawan.
2. Executive Officer, Adityapur Municipal Corporation,
Seraikella-Kharsawan, officiating from the office of
Executive Officer situate Municipal Corporation Building,
Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur,
District - Saraikela Kharsawan.
3. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority,
Vikash Bhawan, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur,
District -Saraikela Kharsawan.
4. The Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area
Development Authority, Vikash Bhawan, Post Adityapur,
Police Station Adityapur, District -Saraikela Kharsawan.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1084 of 2018
----
M/s Acropoly Metal Industries Private Limited through its
Managing Director, Sri Deepak Goyal, aged about 48 years,
son of Sri P.P.Goyal, having its office at M-10(Part), 4th
phase, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority,
situate at Village Bara, Post Gamharia, Police Station
Gamharia, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.
.... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Adityapur Municipal Corporation, Seraikella-
Kharsawan, through its Chief Executive Officer, officiating
from its office situate in Municipal Corporation Building,
Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur,
District - Saraikela Kharsawan.
2. Executive Officer, Adityapur Municipal Corporation,
Seraikella-Kharsawan, officiating from the office of
Executive Officer situate in Municipal Corporation
Building, Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station
Adityapur, District - Saraikela Kharsawan.
3. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority,
Vikash Bhawan, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur,
District -Saraikela Kharsawan.
4. The Regional Director, Adityapur Industrial Area
Development Authority, Vikash Bhawan, Post Adityapur,
Police Station Adityapur, District -Saraikela Kharsawan.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioners :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
[in WPC 1441/2013 & 866/2011]
Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate
[in WPC 1081/2018 & 1084/2018]
For the State : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC(L&C)-II
For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. J.P.Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the AIADA :Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate
------
Order No. 06/Dated 17th February, 2022
The matter has been taken up through video
conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have prayed to hear
all the matters together since common issues are involved
in these writ petitions.
3. All these four writ petitions have been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction
for quashing/setting aside the demand letters/notices
issued by the respondent- Municipal Council under the
Bihar and Orissa Municipality Act, 1922 whereby and
whereunder holding tax has been sought to be levied
against the writ petitioners in respect of their properties
situated at Adityapur Industrial Area.
4. Mr. J.P.Jha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Ranjan Prasad Sinha, appearing for the Adityapur
Municipal Corporation and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the Adityapur Industrial
Area, raised a preliminary objection about the
maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that
there is no notification which was required to be issued
under Article 243-Q(1) of the Constitution of India. The
judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
MGR Industries Association and Another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 494
has been relied upon.
5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia as also Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, have
submitted that they have got no liability to pay the
levy/taxes in pursuance to the demand notices issued
against them. According to the learned counsel, the liability
to pay such demand is upon the Adityapur Industrial Area.
They have further submitted that the matter may be
adjudicated by this Court since the very liability is not
upon them, as such, the demand notices will be treated to
be without jurisdiction.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the documents available on record.
The admitted position herein is that there is no
notification in terms of Article 243-Q(1) of the Constitution
of India whereby and whereunder it has been mandated by
the Constitution to the effect which reads hereunder as :-
"243Q. Constitution of Municipalities.--(1) There shall
be constituted in every State,--
(a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called)
for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in
transition from a rural area to an urban area;
(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area;
and
(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban
area,
in accordance with the provisions of this Part:
Provided that a Municipality under this clause
may not be constituted in such urban area or part
thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of
the area and the municipal services being provided or
proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment
in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit,
by public notification, specify to be an industrial
township."
7. This Court has also perused the judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Apex Court in MGR Industries Association
and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(Supra) wherein also the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into
consideration the operation of the Municipal Act in the
Industrial Area in absence of notification as required to be
issued under Article 243-Q(1) of the Constitution of India.
8. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, is of
the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case
of jurisdictional error about applicability of Municipal Act in
Industrial Area, since, admittedly no notification has been
issued in terms of Article 243-Q(1) of the Constitution of
India.
9. It further appears from the material on record that
the question of fastening the liability is the subject matter
to be adjudicated, which, since depends upon
determination of the factual aspects, therefore, it will not be
proper for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction conferred to
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the
instant writ petitions involve disputed questions of law and
fact, therefore, it would not be proper to exercise the extra
ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage.
11. Therefore, the writ petitions are held to be not
maintainable and are dismissed.
12. However, the writ petitioners are at liberty to
approach before the appropriate forum available under the
statute to raise all the issues i.e., legal as well as factual,
for its determination in accordance with law.
If the alternative forum will be approached by the
writ petitioners, it goes without saying that the issue will be
adjudicated strictly in accordance with law, after providing
opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.
13. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
14. In consequence thereto, pending interlocutory
applications also stand disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/
