Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41.IV-

NMMC cannot contract out of its statutory functions:

Under the MOU dated December 1, 2005, MIDC handed over maintenance of roads, drains, street lights etc.to NMMC . Having regard to the provisions of the MID Act, the MIDC cannot abdicate its statutory duties and functions. The said MOU is therefore in the teeth of the provisions of the MID Act and is therefore illegal, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed and set aside.

However, there is no provision empowering the MIDC to levy and recover the taxes. Now, coming to clause 7 of the First Schedule under the M.R.& T.P.Act, it lays down that whenever the relevant authority (MIDC in the present case) itself provides in the area within the jurisdiction of the local authority (NMMC in the present case) all or any of the amenities, which the local authority provides, the relevant authority shall not be liable to pay taxes including the property taxes, if any, but it shall be lawful to the local authority to arrive at an agreement with the relevant authority with the prior sanction of the State Government to receive the lump-sum contribution from the relevant authority in lieu of all or any of the taxes levied or services rendered by the local authority. In view of the provisions of clause 7 of First Schedule, it is the relevant authority who is exempt from payment of taxes including the property taxes. The contention of the petitioners that even the plot holders in the MIDC area are exempt and are not liable to pay the taxes, is wholly misconceived. As noted earlier, even under the BPMC Act, there is no provision for granting exemption from payment of taxes, save and except referred to herein above. Clause 7 of the First Schedule exempts the relevant authority from payment of taxes and not the plot holders in the jurisdiction of the relevant authority. But for clause 7 of the First Schedule, even the MIDC would have been liable to pay taxes including property taxes to NMMC. We have noted that under the BPMC Act, the NMMC is empowered to levy various taxes for the purposes of the said Act within its area of operation. Even under the MID Act, the MIDC is empowered to levy fees and service charges on the plot holders as per Section 17 thereof. In the case of Solapur MIDC (supra) the Apex Court held that the scope and ambit of the BPMC and that of MID Act is different.

It was also contended that the MIDC is the special planning authority under the M.R.& T.P.Act and has to discharge its functions as a planning authority and provide necessary infrastructural amenities. The MIDC made an affidavit and accepted that it is functioning as a planning, development and management agency for the industrial area. It has provided basic infrastructural amenities like roads, street lights, water etc. The Court held that under the provisions of Section 40 (1A) of the M.R.& T.P.Act, the MIDC is a special planning authority and is under obligation to carry out the functions of providing infrastructural amenities within the area of its operation.

(ii) Ms.Deepa Chavan, learned counsel for the MIDC invited our attention to the provisions of the MID Act and submitted that the MIDC has not abdicated its statutory duties. The MOU dated December 1, 2005 is not contrary to the provisions of the MID Act and in fact it is in consonance with the express provisions, which permit the MIDC to enter into such type of agreements.

She invited our attention to the provisions of Section 14 (ii) (d), Section 15(c) (i) (k). In the light of these provisions the MIDC is well within its right, to cause to be provided the amenities in the MIDC area. It further enables the MIDC to enter into any agreement with the local authority, which does not breach and violate any law or statutory provisions. She further submitted that the perusal of the MOU dated December 1, 2005 indicates that the MIDC handed over certain roads and incidental facilities to the NMMC. The NMMC is required to undertake maintenance of the said roads and is further required to take approval and permissions in respect thereof from the MIDC. After December 1, 2005 the MIDC has not levied any service charges in respect of those facilities. The conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 15(c), (j) (k) read with Section 14 (ii) (d) of the MID Act clearly permits the MIDC to enter into such type of arrangement with the local authority. We therefore do not find any substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners.