AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Issue notice upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 under ordinary process as well as Registered cover with A/D, for which requisites to be filed within one week, failing which this application as against the concerned respondents shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. The respondent no. 4-AIADA has been represented through its counsel Mr. R.C.P. Sah who seeks time to file his response.
Counsel for the State of Jharkhand also seeks sometime to file their response.
An important question of law has been raised in the instant writ application as to whether the Municipal Authorities under the Jharkhand Municipal Act can levy holding tax in respect of the plots lying within the jurisdiction of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority which is created under the Industrial Area Development Authority Act, constituted under the Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974. Both legislations are State Legislations.
Counsel for the petitioner has also raised a legal question as to whether the provisions of the Municipal Act would operate upon declaration of the area as a development area under the Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, and in the case of Saij Gram Panchayat Vs. The State of Gujarat and Others, where similar issues were involved.
Since the issue involves important questions of law, learned Advocate General is requested to assist the Court in the matter.
List the case on 05th August 2013 along with WPC No. 866/2011, as according to the counsel for the petitioner, issues raised in both the writ application are similar.
In the meantime, the demand raised by the respondent Municipal Corporation, Adityapur shall remain stayed. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the counsel for the respondents.