M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. Since common issues are involved in these three writ petitions, a common order is being passed.

In these three writ petitions, Sub-section (ii) of Section 1 of the Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006 and Sub-section (ii) of Section 1 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 are being challenged by the petitioners seeking for a declaration that Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2000 and Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006 cannot be extended by the State to the Ranchi District including the schedule area as the Parliament alone can extend the provisions of Part IX A of the Constitution of India to the scheduled areas through legislation as contemplated under Article 243ZC of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge the following contentions:

(i) Part IX of the Constitution of India relates to the Municipalities;

(ii) Under Article 243ZC, the provisions of Part IX A of the Constitution shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas and the Parliament alone can extend the provisions of that part to the Scheduled Area and Tribal Areas.

(iii) As per this Article, the State Legislature does not have the power to legislate and extend the provisions relating to Municipalities in the Scheduled Area;

(iv) Admittedly, no law has been made by the Parliament in exercise of the power under Article 243ZC of the Part IXA of the Constitution of India;

(v) Even in para 5(1) of the Vth Schedule, the Governor are being vested with the power to direct any particular Act of the Parliament or an Act of the Legislature shall not apply to the Scheduled areas or shall apply to the scheduled areas in the State subject to the such exceptions and modifications as may be specified by notification. However, in view of the specific prohibition contained in Article 243ZC, the Governor has no power even under Para 5 of the Vth Schedule since Article 243ZC prevails over the Vth Schedule.

(vi) In other words, Part IXA, being introduced later in point of time, indicates the last intention of the Constitutional power of the Union Parliament which will prevail over the para 5(1) of the Vth Schedule.

(vii) The analogous provisions like Article 243ZC is contained in Article 243M in Part IX of the Constitution. This part relates to the Panchayats. Article 243M specifically provides that it is only the Parliament which can extend the provisions of the Act in relation to the Panchayat to the Scheduled Areas and not the State.

(viii) When Bihar Panchayat Raj Act was enacted extending the provisions of Part IX to the Scheduled Areas, the Division Bench of Patna High Court by a decision as reported in 1996 (1) BLJR 425 held that in the light of Article 243M the said Act would not apply to the Scheduled Areas of the unified Bihar. This decision was rendered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court on the strength of decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1995 AP 274.

(ix) The same reasoning would apply to the present case also. The State Government, by virtue of the Jharkhand Municipal Act and Ranchi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act 2006 cannot extend to the Scheduled Areas which is prohibited under Article 243ZC.

(x) Further Article 243ZF allows the continuance of the existing laws relating to Municipality only till the existing Act is amended or until the expiration of one year from the commencement. This period has already lapsed. Therefore, declaration is sought to the effect that the State Act introducing the provisions extending to the Scheduled Area is not valid.

3. In reply to the above said contention, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, representing the State would urge the following submissions:

(i) For answering the issue raised before this Court, Article 243ZC and Article 243ZF are required to be read together.

(ii) In Article 243ZC the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution of India were not made applicable to the scheduled areas.

(iii