NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Jharkhand government seeking its response on why municipal body should be constituted for Jamshedpur which is being controlled and managed by Tata group for the last fifty years.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra , Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud agreed to hear a PIL filed by Jamshedpur resident Jawaharlal Sharma seeking court’s direction for establishing a duly elected municipal body in accordance with the provisions contained in Part IX-A of the constitution.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan , appearing for the petitioner, contended that the basic purpose of the 73rd and 74th amendment of the constitution was to ensure devolution of powers to the local elected body accountable directly to the people but the state government in “collusion” with the industrial house refused to establish a municipality by delaying the decision for several decades.

“The establishment of a municipality ensures that the basic decisions affecting the lives of the people at local level are taken by an elected council which is directly accountable to the people. Because of the non establishment of municipality in Jamshedpur basic services like primary education, health, sanitation, water supply, solid waste management, and other public necessities like road, parks etc. are the responsibility of an unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic industrial establishment which is affecting the rights of the people,” the petitioner said.

Opposing petitioner’s plea, senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Tata group, said that the industrial house had been controlling the affairs of the city for the last fifty years and it was a model township with all facilities. “These facilities are better that those provided by the best of the municipalities in the country,” he said.

The court, after a brief hearing, sought response from the state and made it clear that the government was not restrained from taking a decision to declare Jamshedpur as an industrial township or municipality during the pendency of the case. It, however, said that any decision taken by state would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

