The Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Industries Ltd. vs Adityana Gram Panchayat

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.—Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, fairly states that the question involved in this petition is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, . The main contention in the present petition is that the Panchayat is bound to accept the agreement for lump sum payment if application is made by the factory under the provisions of Section 179(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1962. Section 179(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act reads as follows:

179 (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, and regard being had to the fact that a factory itself provides in the factory area all or any of the amenities which such panchayat provides, a Gram Panchayat or as the case may be, Nagar Panchayat may arrive at an agreement with any factory with the sanction of the State Government to receive a lump sum contribution in lieu of all or any of the taxes levied by the Panchayat.

Mr. Nanavati wants to read the sentence "Nagar Panchayat may arrive at an agreement with any factory" as "Nagar Panchayat shall arrive at an agreement with any factory". Such an interpretation was negatived by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, . As against this judgment, the party had approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP which has been rejected. In view of the settled position, we do not think that there is any substance in the prayer made in the Special Civil Application.

Accordingly this Special Civil Application is rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. It is made clear that the deposits which have been made by the petitioner as per the direction of the Court will be adjusted in respect of the amount of octroi found payable by the petitioner.

Mr. S.I. Nanavati makes oral prayer to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. As the question involved in this matter has been settled by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment and SLP preferred against the same has been dismissed, we do not think there is any-substantial question of law of general importance involved in this case which requires grant of leave to appeal under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. Hence the prayer is rejected.