SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Jhk) 750

High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA AND PERMOD KOHLI, JJ.
JAWAHARLAL SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND - Respondents
W. P. (C) 872 Of 2006
Decided On : 06/23/2006

Advocates Appeared:
ALLAM, A.K.Sinha, Afaque Ahmad, G.M.MISHRA, H.K.Singh, INDRAJIT SINHA, Krishna Shankar, M.M.Prasad, M.Sohail Anwar, MANOJ KUMAR, Mukesh Kr.Sinha, N.Hoda, Nadira Patherya, Naresh Chandra Dutta, Rajeeva Sharma, RITA KUMARI, ROHIT ROY, S.PAL, SURESH KUMAR

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the State government to act in accordance with Article 243q of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of law in the constitution of municipality/industrial Township.

Headnote:

Municipal Corporation - Constitution of Municipal Corporation at Jamshedpur - Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978, Article 243q of the Constitution of India - The court held that the notification dated 6th December, 2005, issued by the respondents and published in Jharkhand Gazette on 8th December, 2005, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The case is remitted to the State government to act in terms of Article 243q of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of law, relating to constitution of municipality/industrial Township, as the case may be.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved four writ petitions challenging the constitution of Municipal Corporation at Jamshedpur. The petitioners sought to replace the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee with a duly elected Municipal Body in accordance with the provisions contained in Part-IXA of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the notification dated 6th December, 2005, to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The case was remitted to the State government to act in terms of Article 243q of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of law.

Issues: The issues involved the legality and constitutionality of the notification dated 6th December, 2005, and the constitution of Municipal Corporation at Jamshedpur.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification dated 6th December, 2005, was illegal and without jurisdiction. It directed the State government to act in accordance with Article 243q of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of law.

Final Decision: The notification dated 6th December, 2005, was set aside, and the case was remitted to the State government to act in accordance with Article 243q of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of law.

Judgment :

S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

( 1 ) AS all these four writ petitions relate to constitution of municipal Corporation at Jamshedpur and in three of them the notification inviting objection for constitution of such Municipal corporation at Jamshedpur is under challenge and common question of law being involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) OUT of these four analogous writ petitions, two, namely, W. P. (PIL) No. 4388 of 2003 and W. P. (PIL) No. 364 of 2006 have been preferred as public interest litigation. In W. P. (PIL) No. 4388 of 2003 prayer has been made to direct the State to replace jamshedpur Notified Area Committee by duly elected Municipal Body (Corporation)in accordance with the provisions, contained in Part-IX A of the Constitution of India. In W. P. (PIL) No. 364 of 2006 prayer has been made to declare the Notification dated 6th December, 2005 as illegal and unconstitutional and to command the respondents to declare Jamshedpur Township as an "industrial Township" as per Article 243q of the Constitution of India. One Shalkhan Murmoo in W. P. (C) No. 872 of 2006 has also challenged the same notification dated 6thDecember, 2005 on the ground that the same is violative of the Constitution of India and the provisions of "panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas)Act, 1996" (hereinafter to be referred as pesa, 1996) as well as the provisions of "jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001". Fourth writ petition i. e. W. P. (C) No. 517 of 2006 has been preferred by the Tata Steel ltd. (earlier known as Tata iron and Steel company) for a declaration that Section 2 (1) of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978 (Bihar Act 12 of 1978) ultra vires Article 243q read with Article 243zf of the Constitution of India, as the same is not in consonance with the aforesaid constitutional provisions. It has also challenged the Notification dated 6th December, 2005, published by the Government of Jharkhand in the official Gazette dated 8th December, 2005, whereby and whereunder, a draft proposal has been published for declaration and formation of Jamshedpur Municipal Corporation over the areas, falling under jamshedpur and Mango Notified Area Committees and Jugsalai Municipality and for that purpose the State of Jharkhand has invited objections and suggestions from the persons, to be affected by the said Notification. Prayer has also been made for a direction on the respondent-State to issue an appropriate Notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa municipal Act, 1922 and to declare jamshedpur Township as an "industrial township", as envisaged under Section 3 (11 a) of the said Act and to appoint a Committee to cany out the aims and object of the said Act and to carry out the purpose of the act in the "industrial Township".

( 3 ) W. P. (C) No. 517 of 2006: The petitioner tata Steel Ltd. is a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Its steel plant at Jamshedpur was established in the year, 1907 by Sir Jamshed Ji N. Tata. According to the petitioner, with regard to the township at Jamshedpur, the vision of the founder of the Company was clear from the letter written to his son Dorabji in the year, 1902, an extract of which reads as follows:

"be sure, to lay wide streets planted with shady trees, every other of a quick growing variety. Be sure that there is plenty of space for lawns and gardens, reserve large areas for football, hockey and parks, earmark areas for Hindu temples, Mohammedan mosques and Christian churches "

(II) The planning of town and vision was emphasized by the petitioner, giving reference to a letter dated 25th November, 1919, written by T. W. Tutwiler, the then General manager of the Board of petitioner-Company, relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . The survey is now complete, making it possible for the first time to discuss in an intelligent manner the planning of the large area, namely, that above me









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top