AP demands amendments to AP Bifurcation Act, TS opposes

Provisions would cause losses to Andhra Pradesh, say officials

The Andhra Pradesh government is continuing to insist on bringing in amendments to the AP Reorganisation Act 2014 claiming that some provisions in the existing Act are not favourable even as the Telangana government is firm that there is no need for amendments as the provisions of the Act are very clear.

The issue figured during the meeting of the two States convened by Union Home Secretary A.K. Bhalla when AP representatives requested that amendments be made to Section 50, 51 and 56 of the Act dealing with tax-related aspects at the time of bifurcation that are pending resolution.

AP officials contended that Section 50, 51 of the Act provides for recovery of arrears, loans and advances on location basis while Section 56 mandates that refund of taxes collected in excess should be apportioned on population basis between the two States.

This was an anomaly which was “unfavourable” to AP and the State would suffer loss to the tune of ₹ 3,820 crore if necessary amendments were not carried out. The Telangana representatives, however, asserted that no discussion was warranted as the provisions of the Act were clear. “We should not go beyond the Act,” they said. According to the minutes of the meeting, the Union Home Secretary wanted the matter to be examined with a view to see whether the provisions were just and equitable.

In respect of Schedule X institutions, the AP government reiterated its request to divide the assets and liabilities of these 142 training institutions/centres under the provisions of Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Act. Citing the order of the Supreme Court in respect of the AP State Council for Higher Education, AP officials contended that the speaking order issued by the Union government was not in conformity with the Supreme Court’s order.

The Telangana government, however, contended that these institutions were governed by Section 75 of the Act which makes clear that the successor States could only offer facilities/services from these institutions which were geographically located within their territories.

There was no provision for apportionment of such institutions and they should be allocated on location basis with provision of services to people of both States on “non-discriminatory basis”.

The Home Secretary wanted examination of the order of Supreme Court and speaking order of the Union government in relation to apportionment of assets and liabilities of the Schedule X institutions.

Source: Read Full Article