SOMANY PILKINGTONS LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in these three petitions viz. CWP No. 11521, 11522 and 11523 of 1988 challenge the notification dated September 29, 1988 issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4(1) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 . By this notification, the Govt. declared its intention to include within the Municipality of Bahadurgarh certain areas, as specified in the schedule appended thereto. Inhabitants of the area were called upon to submit their objections to the proposed inclusion. The petitioner have submitted their objections. Before these objections could be considered and a final decision with regard to the issue of a notification as contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Act could be taken, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present petitions. Arguments were addressed in CWP No. 11521 of 1988. Few facts as stated in this petition may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered company. It is engaged in the manufacture of glazed tiles. Its unit is located in village Kassar. Part of the land on which the factory of the petitioner is located was acquired by the Govt. of Haryana and allotted to the petitioner in the year 1969. Some land was purchased by the petitioner from the land-owners. The petitioner avers that it had set up the unit in the backward area of Kassar only on the consideration that it would not have to pay municipal taxes. Besides the petitioner, a number of other industrial units like Messrs. Parkash Tubes (Petitioner in CWP No. 11522 of 1988) and Messrs Parley Biscuits have come up in the area. These units, according to petitioner, have developed colonies for providing residential accommodation and other amenities to their staff.

(3.) On June 12, 1984, the Govt. issued a notification under Section 4 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This notification was challenged in CWP No. 3626 of 1984. The notification was quashed vide order dated September 17, 1984. After a period of about four years, the respondents issued the impugned notification. Objections were invited. Petitioner has submitted detailed objections through its counsel vide letter dated November 11, 1988, and a copy thereof has been appended as Annexure P-7 to the petition.