Scheduled Area municipal law continues under the Fifth Schedule when Part IX-A has not been extended and no specific inconsistency is shown.

Part IX-A of the Constitution does not apply ipso facto to Scheduled Areas unless Parliament extends it, so municipal administration there remains governed by the Fifth Schedule. A Governor may, by public notification, exclude or modify the application of a State law in a Scheduled Area, and the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 was extended to Sundargarh through such notification with retrospective effect after its earlier exclusion was repealed. Because no specific inconsistency with Part IX-A was shown and the notification was not challenged, the municipal regime in Sundargarh was treated as valid and the continuance of the municipalities was not illegal on the grounds raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 applied to Sundargarh, a Scheduled Area, and whether the continuation of the municipalities in that area after the commencement of Part IX-A of the Constitution was illegal.

Analysis: Part IX-A does not apply ipso facto to Scheduled Areas under Article 243-ZC, and Parliament had not extended it to Sundargarh. The administration of Scheduled Areas therefore falls under the Fifth Schedule, under which the Governor may direct by public notification that a State law shall not apply, or shall apply with exceptions and modifications. The Orissa Municipal Act had initially been excluded from Scheduled Areas by Section 1(6), but that exclusion was later repealed by notification issued under the Fifth Schedule, and the Act was extended to Scheduled Areas with retrospective effect. The petitioners did not challenge the notification or establish any specific inconsistency between the Municipal Act and Part IX-A.

Conclusion: The Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 applied to Sundargarh, and the continuance of the municipalities could not be held illegal on the grounds urged.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Part IX-A has not been extended to a Scheduled Area, municipal law continues to operate there if validly extended under the Fifth Schedule, and mere assertion of inconsistency without identifying a specific conflicting provision does not invalidate the municipal regime.

---