1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5900 OF 2006 Jalna Cooperative Industrial Estate, A Cooperative Society registered under Cooperative Societies Act, Jalna, Through its Chairman. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Directorate of Municipal Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032, 2) Jalna Municipal Council, A Body Corporate under the Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat & Industrial Township Act, 1965, Through its Chief Officer, 3) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through its Regional Officer, Railway Station Road, M.I.D.C. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel with Shri G.K. Thigle Advocate i/b. Shri. P.S. Shendurnikar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Shri H.K. Munde Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri. S.S. Dande Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner Co-operative Society in Jalna Co-operative Industrial Estate has raised questions of jurisdiction and authority of Municipal Council, Jalna to levy property taxes under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "the Act of 1965"). The Petitioners have even impugned the bills of taxes issued to the members of the society who 3 were alloted plots in the industrial zone. 3. It is contended by the Petitioner that the subject land was acquired by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation on 16th October, 1962 and the plots for industrial development were alloted to the members of the society in the year 1965. The Municipal Council started issuing bills for payment of property taxes since the year 1979. It is further submitted that the bills issued in the year 1979 were not pressed by the Municipal Council. The Petitioner drew our attention to the resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 18th June, 1981. 4. Shri. P.M. Shah, the learned senior counsel mainly submitted that in the light of the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act 1961, the Municipal Council is not entitled to levy property taxes on the structures erected by the members of the society. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation 4 is a special planning authority which is entitled to govern the affairs of development in the industrial area. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation levies service charges on the members of the society for the services rendered to them and in the light of the same, levying of property taxes would amount to double taxation, which would be without authority of law. 5. Shri. Dixit, learned senior counsel appearing of the Municipal Council submitted that both these enactments namely the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act 1961 and the Act of 1965 operate in their respective independent demarcated field. On the issue of levy of service charges and property taxes, there is no conflict in between these two enactments. It was submitted that the Petitioners have efficacious statutory remedy to challenge the bills of taxes under the provisions of the Act of 1965. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Saij Gram Panchayat vs. State of Gujarat and others reported 5 in (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases, Page 366, Solapur MIDC Industries Association vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1997 A.I.R. (S.C.)-0-8 and in the case of M. Sector Industries Charitable Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002 (1) Bom. C.R. Page 725. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 M.I.D.C. submitted that the M.I.D.C. recovers service charges from the allottees and Municipal Council is entitled to levy property taxes under the provisions of respective law. Learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 supported the stand of the Municipal Council. Reliance is placed on the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.1. 7. We find that the issue as to whether the Municipal Council is entitled to levy property taxes from the allottees on the structures which are erected in the M.I.D.C. area is no more res 6 integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Sector Industries Charitable Trust vs. State of Maharashtra, cited supra, in Para 9 observed thus: " It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per the proviso to Clause 1 of Article 243-Q, an existing industrial area which is part of the Municipal Council is required to be separated and specified as an industrial township by amending the Municipalities Act within the period of one year from 1-6-1993 and as the State Government has failed to comply with the said requirement, the township is deemed to be separated from the municipality automatically. So far as the existing industrial area which is a part of the Municipal Council as on 1-6-1993 is concerned, we are afraid, no such deeming provision could be 7 read into the proviso of Article 243-Q of the Constitution and it is only an enabling provision which empowers the Governor to specify a particular area to be an industrial township, having regard to the size of the area and 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. This provision does not, per se, provide that an industrial area must be specified as an industrial township by a public notification by the Governor and the Municipalities Act must be amended accordingly, in case where the industrial area is already a part of the Municipal Council as on 1-6-1993. The Government of Maharashtra has issued a Resolution on 9th June, 1993 stating therein that while establishing a new Municipal 8 Council/Corporation or while extending the boundaries of the existing Municipal Council/ Corporation, the Industrial township where the civic amenities are being provided by the M.I.D.C. or any other agency shall not be included in the Municipal Council/ Corporation limits for a period of 25 years from the date of establishment of such Municipal Council or Corporation. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the M.I.D.C. is supplying only water and it is charging fees for the same alone. The property taxes are being collected by the Municipal Council right from 1987 and there is no industrial establishment providing municipal services or proposing to provide such services to the area where the petitioner units are located and the Municipal Council has specifically taken a plea that all the municipal services except water supply 9 are being provided by it to the said industrial area. Under these circumstances, we hold that the proviso to the Clause 1 of Article 243-Q of the Constitution does not come into play in the case of the Municipal Council at Jalgaon and the contentions on Issue No.(a) are, therefore, rejected. The enunciations as relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable in the Acts of the present petitions." 8. In the case of Solapur MIDC Industries Association vs. State of Maharashtra, cited supra, the Apex Court while considering the identical issue, observed thus: "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." 10 9. In the case of Saij Gram Panchayat vs. State of Gujarat and others, cited supra, the Apex Court in Para 20 observed thus: "Explaining the purpose behind Section 16 the High Court has rightly held that having regard to the power conferred upon the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation in the matter of provision of amenities and common facilities in industrial estates and industrial areas, on levy of certain charges upon those who set up industries therein, an industrial area would ordinarily be a self- sufficient township in itself which provides its own amenities and recovers charges therefor. A local authority having jurisdiction over such area will have to perform very few of its statutory or discretionary duties in respect of such area. Yet it may levy and collect taxes from those 11 who set up industries in the area. It is to avoid this virtual dual control and administration which might impede the growth and development of industries that provision has, presumably, been made in Section 16 for constituting an industrial area into a notified area and thereby converting it into a separate administrative unit. As we have stated earlier, creation of such a separate administrative unit is not contrary to the scheme of Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution when Article 243Q provides for the creation of such a separate administrative unit in the form of an industrial township. It has also been pointed out by the respondents that neither Article 243N nor 243ZF invalidates any Industrial Development Act." 10. Considering the Judgments cited supra and 12 the provisions in both these Enactments, we are of the considered view that Municipal Council has authority, power and jurisdiction to levy property taxes on the structures situated in the industrial zone. We do not notice any conflict between the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the Act of 1965 on this subject issue. The Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. [A.V. POTDAR, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/APR10/wp5900.06