LAW FOR ALL

in Saij Gram Panchayat vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1999 (2) SCC 366, where this Court had occasion to consider the proviso to Article 243-Q sub-clause (1) in the context of Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962. After insertion of Part IX-A in the Constitution, the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1962 was also amended by adding Section 264-A. It was provided under Section 264-A that notified area means an urban area or part thereof specified to be an industrial township area under the proviso to Article 243-Q(1) of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment are extracted below: "10. The Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1962 was amended on 20-8-1993 in view of the insertion of Part IX-A in the Constitution. Section 264-A was substantially amended. It now provided: “264-A. For the purpose of this chapter, notified area means an urban area or part thereof specified to be an industrial township area under the proviso to clause (1) to Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India.” Thus, as a result of this amendment in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, as industrial area under the Gujarat Industiral Development Act, which is notified under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, would become a notified area under the new Section 264-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and would mean an industrial township area under the proviso to clause(1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. 11. On 7-9-1993, the Government of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act declaring Kalol Industrial Area as a notified area under Section 264-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. By another notification of the same date 7-9-1993, the Government of Gujarat excluded the notified area from Saij Gram Panchayat under Section 9(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.” Thus, for treating industrial area as industrial township notification under proviso to Article 243-Q(1) was contemplated which is also the statutory scheme under the 1976 Act. 17. In view of the aforegoing discussion, we are of the view that it was rightly held by the High Court that exemption under Article 12-A of the 1976 Act was not available in the facts of the above case. The appellants were not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.