TS has right on institutions
In view of conflicting claims of two successor states in respect of specified institutions in the 10th Schedule, particularly the institutions located in and around Hyderabad have become controversial.
Educational, charitable, training, autonomous otherwise service oriented institutions are specified in the 10th Schedule u/s 75 of the Act. In terms of Sec.75 specified institutions under the 10th Schedule located in TS will continue to provide facilities to the people of the other state namely AP. Similarly, the institutions located in AP have to provide facilities to the people of TS without any discrimination. For the said purpose an agreement has to be entered into between the two states within a period of one year from the appointed day, on such terms and conditions as agreeable to both the states. It appears, there is no such agreement entered into between the two states.
In fact, the very reading of Sec.75 itself indicates that the institutions located in the respective state, the said state government will have control over the management of the said institution including providing budgetary allocations for maintenance of the said institutions. In terms of Sec.48 of the Act 6/2014 all lands, stores, articles and other goods belonging to the then existing state of AP shall, if within the transferred territory, pass to the state of TS.
In view of the aforesaid provisions of Sec.75 and 48, the institutions located in the respective state will pass to that state. A dispute arose for claiming bank deposits in respect of the AP State Council for Higher Education, which is a specified institution at Item No.29 of the 10th Schedule. In this connection, two writ petitions were filed one by the AP State Council for Higher Education and another filed by the Telangana State Council for Higher Education.
The Division Bench of the High Court after considering the matter in detail held that the institutions in the 10th Schedule situated in the territory of AP stands allocated to that state. Similarly, the institutions located in TS will stand allocated to the state of Telangana.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, AP filed two Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court did not stay the judgment, except observing that the AP State Council for Higher Education can conduct examinations in respect of institutions located in that state. In addition to the above, the High Court has taken into consideration the principle of law of territory known as doctrine of Lexicity.
In terms of the said principle, the law of the land will have application. Therefore, any institution located in TS, will be governed by the law of the state of Telangana. Similarly institutions located in the state of AP, the laws of AP will applicable.
In spite of settled law in the matter, the state of AP claiming the institutions located in Hyderabad, on one or other pretext and the chief secretary, state of AP has issued a circular directing the secretaries and HODs to resist the claim of the state of TS in respect of institutions located in Hyderabad by wrongly interpreting the judgment rendered by the High Court that it pertains to AP State Council for Higher Education and the said judgment has no application in respect of the other institutions. In fact, the High Court in its judgment categorically stated that the institutions located in the respective states will have control by the respective states and the institutions stands allotted to the respective states according to their location.
Apart from the principle of Lexicity and a plain reading of AP Reorganisation Act, it clearly indicates that the institutions located in the territory of Telangana state, the government of Telangana will have control, manage and finance its functioning and the government of AP has no right or authority to control the said institutions in the state of TS. (K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate General Telangana)
Benefits must be shared
The institutions enumerated in the 10th Schedule of the AP State Reorganisation Act, Section 75 deals only with the working of the said institutions and not with the apportionment of their assets and funds.
All funds, assets etc. of the 10th Schedule institutions must be apportioned as per Part VI of the Act, which deals with the Apportionment of Assets and Liabilities. A perusal of Part VI makes it amply clear that the legislative intent was for the apportionment of all the assets, liabilities etc. of such institutions between the two successor states on the basis of the population ratio. This legislative mandate has already been given effect to with respect to various other institutions listed in the 10th Schedule such as the AP Pollution Control Board, wherein the assets have been divided as per the population ratio i.e. 58:42 in favour of the state of Andhra Pradesh. In fact, a similar proposal had also been sent by the state of TS a to the state of AP with respect to the AP Council of Higher Education, the dispute pertaining to which is sub-judice before the Supreme Court.
This clearly shows that the understanding of the state of Telangana was also that the assets of the Section X institutions ought to be apportioned between the two successor states as per Part VI. In this regard, section 47 of the Act clearly states that both successor states are entitled to receive benefits as well as bear the liabilities resulting from the decisions taken by the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh. Section 47 clearly states that Part VI will be applicable to all the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh and if there was any intent to exclude 10th Schedule institutions, the same would have been expressly provided for by the legislature.
Further, Section 49 of the Act, which deals with the cash balances in the treasuries of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh, also states that such cash balances ought to be divided between the successor states on the basis of the population ratio. Section 52(4) of the Act states that, “where anybody corporate constituted under a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the existing state of Andhra Pradesh or any part thereof has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II, become an inter-state body corporate, the investments or loans in, or loans or advances to, any such body corporate by the existing state of Andhra Pradesh made before the appointed day shall, save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, be divided between the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the same proportion in which the assets of the body corporate are divided under the provisions of this Part.”
Thus, it can clearly be seen that the intent of the legislature was the division of the assets of all body corporates constituted under an Act to serve the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh between the two successor states, many of which are also enumerated in the 10th Schedule.
The residuary provision contained in section 64 states that, “the benefit or burden of any asset or liability of the existing state of Andhra Pradesh not dealt with in the foregoing provisions of this part shall pass to the state of Andhra Pradesh in the first instance, subject to such financial adjustment as may be agreed upon between the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana or, in default of such agreement, as the Central government may, by order, direct.”
It is also most pertinent to point out that section 47 clearly states that any dispute between the successor states with regard to the apportionment of assets shall be settled through mutual agreement, failing which by an order of the Central government. Hence, it is absolutely clear that the onus to settle any dispute lies on the Centre and the Courts have no role to play until a decision is given by the Central government. (Dammalapati Srinivas, Addl Advocate General Andhra Pradesh)
