Jamshedpur, Sep 6: The Jharkhand High Court has taken a critical stance against the state’s decision to designate Jamshedpur as an industrial town. During a hearing on Public Interest Litigation PIL 2636/2024, filed by Saurabh Vishnu and over 50 residents, the court expressed strong disapproval of the government’s notification dated December 23, 2023. This notification amalgamated the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee with several Tata Group facilities to form a new industrial town.
Advocate Akhilesh Srivastava, representing the petitioners, argued that this move violates India’s constitutional structure of self-governance, which includes Parliament, Legislative Assemblies, and local bodies. He asserted that the abolition of the local body in Jamshedpur and the consolidation of the area under an industrial designation infringes on both constitutional and human rights. Srivastava highlighted that the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, under Section 481, explicitly prevents the inclusion of industrial areas within municipal corporations.
The court agreed that the notification appears to contravene constitutional norms and the fundamental rights of citizens. It criticized the government’s action as potentially undermining local governance and unfairly favouring Tata Group’s control over Jamshedpur. The court called the notification a possible constitutional fraud and ordered the state government to file an affidavit within a week. The next hearing is scheduled for September 13, where further legal proceedings will address the validity of the notification. (w/nkm)
High Court challenges Industrial City notification
Jamshedpur, Sep 6: The Jharkhand High Court is reviewing the state’s notification designating Jamshedpur as an industrial city, which critics argue upholds Tata Group’s century-old dominance over local governance. The notification, challenged in Public Interest Litigation PIL 2636/2024, is alleged to support Tata’s illegal control over 12,708 acres of tribal land, where Tata has reportedly collected Rs 10 lakh crore in land revenue, bypassing municipal authority.
The petitioners, represented by advocates Akhilesh Srivastava and others, argue that the lease agreement of August 20, 2005, is fraudulent and that Jamshedpur should have a Municipal Corporation as mandated by the Supreme Court and the 74th Constitutional Amendment. The court has expressed strong disapproval and ordered the government to submit an affidavit within a week, with the next hearing set for September 13.
