NANAVATI - (1.) . Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'thepetitioner') is Gujarat Pesticides Formulators Association, and the other petitioners are the members of the Association. The members of the petitioner-Association are carrying on the business of pesticides formulations and for that purpose, are having their small manufacturing units in different industrial estates, which were formerly situated outside the limits of Ahmedabad City, but which are now included within the city limits and thus brought under the administrative jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. It is the petitioner's case that the areas, where their factories are situated, were either parts of some Gram Panchayats or Nagar Panchayats. These local authorities were resource-wise very small and it was difficult for them to provide civil amenities in those areas. It was for that reason that subsequently they were declared as 'notified areas' under the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act. The said notified areas were managed and administered by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ('GIDC' for short) in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act and the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The G.I.D.C. has provided civic amenities and facilities, like roads, electricity, water supply, drainage etc. The said facilities have been provided by the G.I.D.C. from the income received from the persons, who have put up their industrial units within those industrial estates. Earlier also, local authorities, like Vatva Nagar Panchayat, Odhav Nagar Panchayat, Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Saijpur Bogha Nagar Panchayat had resisted the declaration of those areas as notified areas by filing writ petitions in the High Court. But all those attempts had failed and were given up in 1978.
(2.) . When the area was under the process of development by the G.I.D.C., the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had consistently resisted every attempt to extend the limits of Ahmedabad city so as to include those areas within the city limits, as it did not want to bear the burden of developing those areas. But, after passage of about 7 or 8 years, when the said areas became developed, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was tempted to get those areas included in the city limits in order to substantially raise its revenue. The State Government also, in order to achieve the above object, issued a Notification on 5-11-1985, proposing to alter the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation so as to include the notified areas within the limits of Ahmedabad city and invited suggestions or objections from all the persons likely to be affected by the said proposal. It is the case of the petitioners that it was a mere show as the State Government had already decided to include those areas within the limits of Ahmedabad city and that the said decision was taken in order to improve the financial position of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which had become otherwise very precarious. Large number of persons, who were likely to be affected by the said Notification, had filed their objections. The said proposal was objected to by different trade associations by holding meetings and making representations. In the said representations, it was pointed out that the proposal was not bona fide and that it would become almost impossible for the industries situated in the notified and surrounding areas to bear the additional burden of taxation prevailing in the city of Ahmedabad. It is the petitioner's case that without seriously taking those objections and suggestions into consideration, the State Government, as it was predetermined, included those areas within the city limits of Ahmedabad by issuing a Notification dated 5-2-1986. It is the petitioner's case that, as a result thereof, they are deprived of the benefits, which those areas enjoyed as notified areas and they are also deprived of the benefit of having elected representatives. Moreover, they will be now subjected to octroi, which was not levied by the local authorities in those notified areas, and also property taxes. As the petitioners will now be subjected to octroi and property taxes and as they are deprived of other benefits, which they were enjoying earlier, they have filed this petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Secs. 3 and 127(2)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and Gujarat Ordinance No. 3 of 1986, on the ground that they are ultra vires Arts. 14, 19, 265 and 304 of the Constitution of India. They have aslo challenged the validity of the Notification dated 5- 2-1986 and the Notes below Circulars dated 2/04/1986 and 9/04/1986. They have further prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to exempt the raw materials, packing materials and machineries pertaining to pesticides formulation industries from payment of octroi duty and other taxes levied by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
(3.) . After the filing of the petition, the State Legislature has passed the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Gujarat Amendment and Validation) Act, 1986, which has now come into force on and from 9/04/1986, replacing Gujarat Ordinance No, 3 of 1986. Though the petition is not amended inspite of this change, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners sought permission to challenge the vires of Sec. 3A, which has now been included in the Act. As this petition was heard alongwith some other petitions and as validity of Sec. 3A has been challenged in those petitions, we have permitted the learned Counsel to make his submissions regarding validity of Sec. 3A without first insisting upon formal amendment of the petition.;