The pending issue of distributing liabilities and assets of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh came up for discussion in the Telangana High Court on Tuesday.
During the hearing on the RTC strike, Advocate-General B.S. Prasad informed the court that precise financial status of RTC could not be placed before the HC as the RTC liabilities were to be shared by the two States. In that case, why did not you resolve the issue with AP, Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A. Abhishek Reddy sought to know. As per the provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act, the assets and liabilities of the RTC were to be shared by Telangana and AP by 42% and 58% respectively.
With the CJ asking why the sharing of assets and liabilities was not completed, the AG replied that it was the Centre’s job. Then why did not the State government convince the Centre to complete the process, the CJ asked. While dictating the order, the division bench directed the Union government’s counsel to clarify the Centre’s stand on distributing the assets and liabilities of the RTC during the next hearing on Friday.
When the bench referred to its query raised during the previous hearing that whether the government could release ₹47 crore to RTC to concede five demands of the striking workers, the AG said the government was helpless. It had allocated ₹550 crore in the current financial year and already released ₹425 crore. The remaining sum would be paid by March, 2020, the AG said.
The government was prioritising the needs of people, he said. The bench asked the AG if the government chose a city or State population as the beneficiary if it had to spend ₹100 crore funds. “When you talk of priorities, keep in mind about tribal population living on the periphery of the State and what transportation means they have,” the bench said.
Meanwhile, Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the HC directed the police to allow a meeting to be organised by TSRTC union from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Wednesday at Saroornagar indoor stadium. A lunch motion seeking permission to hold the meeting was moved in the HC. The judge, however, imposed conditions, including an undertaking by the meeting organisers to take responsibility for any untoward incident.
