The Union Ministry is likely to intervene in the apportionment of assets and liabilities of the institutions listed under the Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act-2014 as the issue continues to evade a solution for more than five years since the bifurcation of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh.
Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla has dropped hints to this effect when he asked the two States, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, to give their views and counter comments with regard to the institutions where there were disagreements between the two States. The views of the two States were sought so that the Union Home Ministry could consider the institutions where differences existed on “case-to-case basis”.
The Union Home Secretary wanted the two States to finalise cases where there was an agreement between the two States and issue orders accordingly.
The development has assumed significance as the two States have locked horns over the apportionment of 22 of the 91 institutions listed under the Schedule IX of the Act.
While there is a broad-based agreement over the bifurcation of 68 institutions, the case relating to the bifurcation of the erstwhile A.P. State Finance Corporation has taken a legal turn.
The issue was discussed in detail at the recent meeting of the Chief Secretaries of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh convened by the Union Home Ministry to iron out the differences between the two States and resolve the pending issues.
Population ratio
The apportionment of assets and liabilities of the Schedule IX institutions came to a halt on account of the interpretation of the headquarters. The State government has been firm that only the principal place of business qualifies under the term ‘headquarter’ and facilities appurtenant such as sports grounds, workshops and others do not quality under it. The neighbouring A.P. government, however, has been insisting that the facilities appurtenant to the institutions too qualify under the term ‘headquarter’ and should be divided among the successor States on the basis of population ratio as specified in the Act.
The case of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) and its subsidiary company A.P. Heavy Machinery and Equipment Limited, for instance, has become a bone of contention between the two States when it comes to interpreting the definition of the word ‘headquarter’. The expert committee headed by Sheela Bhide recommended transfer of SCCL to Telangana and APHMEL to the neighbouring State based on the location. The A.P. government raised objection relating to the SCCL, while the Telangana government is against apportionment of the APHMEL to the neighbouring State.
Interestingly, the SCCL is listed under the Schedule XII as well as Schedule IX along with other public sector undertakings whose assets and liabilities are to be apportioned between the two States as per Section 68 read with Section 53 of the Reorganisation Act.
“These dual provisions in the Act have created confusion,” a senior official said. The Union Ministry has therefore directed the officials concerned to obtain legal opinion on the issue before taking further steps relating to bifurcation of assets and liabilities.
