Telangana High Court
Itc Limited, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 January, 2021
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION No.38358 OF 2018
O R D E R:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) ITC Limited, the petitioner herein, has filed this Writ Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus for refund of the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores to it from the respondents, which amount had been deposited by it with the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) through cheque No.066843 dt.29.05.2007 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, for allotment of land towards expansion project undertaken by it in Sarapaka Village near Bhadrachalam in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of paper boards and specialty papers apart from other businesses and has a manufacturing facility at Sarapaka Village near Bhadrachalam established during 1970s in the then State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wanted to expand the existing facility and requested the then Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2005 to allot land for expansion in the said village.
3. Under the said proposal, the APIIC had furnished a proposal for diversion of 445 hectares of forest land in Kistasagar Reserved Forest MSR,J & TA,J ::2:: wp_38358_2018 of Paloncha Forest Division in Khammam District to the petitioner and an extent of 1576.80 Acres in Peddannavaripalli, Talupula Mandal of Ananthapur District was also identified by APIIC for compensatory afforestation.
4. The petitioner's request was agreed to by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and land to an extent of 1500 Acres was earmarked in said village by the APIIC which was functioning as a Nodal Agency for industrial development in the unified State of Andhra Pradesh.
5. As per the scheme proposed, the identified land would be handed over to APIIC by the Forest Department which would in turn hand it over to the petitioner after getting approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forest of the Union of India.
6. Since the land proposed to be allotted in Sarapaka village was a degraded forest land, the petitioner and the Government Agencies including APIIC identified 1500 Acres of Government land in Ananthapur District for compensatory afforestation. The petitioner was required to maintain compensatory afforestation in this land.
7. After identification of the land in Khammam District, the then Zonal Office of the APIIC at Warangal issued a letter dt.02.05.2007 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.4.5 Crores before 31.05.2007 and the petitioner deposited the same vide letter dt.31.05.2007 along with a cheque drawn on Standard Chartered Bank bearing No.066843 dt.29.05.2007. The cheque was encashed by the APIIC.
MSR,J & TA,J
::3:: wp_38358_2018
8. The proposal to transfer land to the petitioner was ultimately rejected by the Forest Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi in its meeting dt.21-22 December, 2012. However, notwithstanding the same, the money paid by the petitioner was not refunded to the petitioner by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh/APIIC.
9. In the meantime, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated under A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act') with effect from 02.06.2014 into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
10. As a consequence thereof, the lands proposed for diversion for allotment to the petitioner for expansion of it's unit in Sarapaka village fell in the new State of Telangana; and the land proposed for compensatory afforestation in Ananthapur District remained in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
11. Consequent to the bifurcation of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the APIIC, which was acting as a Nodal Agency for the combined State of Andhra Pradesh prior to the Act, came to be bifurcated into Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC) (5th respondent) and APIIC (4th respondent).
12. Post bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh also, the Forest Advisory Committee again discussed the proposal of MSR,J & TA,J ::4:: wp_38358_2018 petitioner in its meeting held on 31.12.2015 and rejected the proposal vide File No.8-19/2011-FC dt.31.12.2015.
13. No fresh proposal was made for transfer of the land to the petitioner and so the advance amount of Rs.4.5 Crores collected from the petitioner became refundable to the petitioner.
14. Basing on the oral representation of the petitioner seeking refund of the said amount, the 5th respondent addressed a letter dt.19.08.2015 to the 4th respondent requesting the 4th respondent to refund the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner, through another letter dt.21.09.2016, formally requested the 5th respondent to refund the said amount to the petitioner. The 5th respondent again addressed a letter dt.29.09.2016 requesting the 4th respondent to refund the amount to the petitioner by stating that the amount deposited by the petitioner was deposited with the District Collector, Ananthapur.
15. The petitioner also addressed a letter dt.13.10.2016 to the 4th respondent seeking refund of the amounts. The 4th respondent replied to the 5th respondent vide letter dt.20.12.2016 rejecting it's liability to refund.
16. Vexed with the claims and counter claims of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner addressed a letter dt.15.06.2017 to the State of Telangana (3rd respondent) to intervene and do the needful in refunding the amounts paid by the petitioner. The State of Telangana MSR,J & TA,J ::5:: wp_38358_2018 addressed a letter dt.29.06.2017 to the State of Andhra Pradesh requesting it to organize for refund of the amounts.
17. The petitioner again made a representation dt.11.09.2017 to the 3rd respondent and the 7th respondent seeking refund of the amounts. The 2nd respondent in a letter dt.12.09.2017 addressed to the 3rd respondent, while admitting that the erstwhile APIIC purchased compensatory lands, declined to refund the amounts on the ground that APIIC has not mutated the non-forest lands in favour of the Forest Department.
18. The petitioner contends that once the proposal to allot and transfer the land to the petitioner did not fructify, the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores collected from the petitioner is liable to be refunded along with interest and it is the responsibility of both respondents 4 and 5 to make refund; since the allotment of land which was to be made to the petitioner is in Khammam District of the State of Telangana, but the petitioner was required to carry out reforestation operation in Ananthapur District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, by applying the principle of unjust enrichment, respondents 4 and 5 cannot continue to withhold the money since the purpose for which the amount was paid has not been accomplished.
The stand of the Forest Department of State of Andhra Pradesh (2nd respondent)
19. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2nd respondent) filed counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner did deposit a sum of Rs.4.5 MSR,J & TA,J ::6:: wp_38358_2018 Crores with the APIIC for purchase of 1500 Acres of land, but stated that the APIIC has not mutated the non-forest land in favour of the Forest Department since the proposal was declined at the initial stage of approval by Government of India; and so the Forest Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh is not liable to refund any amount to the petitioner since the amount was paid actually to the APIIC. The stand of the APIIC ( 4th respondent)
20. The APIIC filed counter affidavit taking the plea that after the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, a D.O. Letter No.5614/Expert Committee/2014 dt.16.05.2015 was issued by the Expert Committee for approval of the demerger proposals of Government Companies/Corporations/Entities in Schedule IX of the Act presided by its Chairperson Dr. Sheela Bhide IAS (Retd.) to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of TSIIC at Hyderabad. It is contended that in the said letter, it was stated that the final demerger proposal of APIIC had been submitted and the Expert Committee had approved it.
21. It is contended that in the Certificate of the Expert Committee with respect to demerger of assets and liabilities signed by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director (FAC), TSIIC and Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APIIC, it was stated that all the assets and liabilities were duly apportioned between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States as per the provisions of the Act and that the land MSR,J & TA,J ::7:: wp_38358_2018 involved in the Writ Petition was within Telangana region and so all the rights and liabilities are only those of TSIIC.
22. It is contended that the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores was deposited by the petitioner in the united APIIC at it's Head Office in Hyderabad and the same was transferred to Warangal Zone during the year of receipt of the amount itself, i.e., financial year 2007-08 as it relates to Warangal Zone and the same was accounted for under the Head of Account "Deposit towards Sale of Plot/Land" in the books of accounts of Warangal Zone in that year itself. It is contended that the liability pertains to Warangal Zone of APIIC and the same should have to be borne by the TSIIC only, which falls in Telangana area. The stand of the TSIIC (5th respondent)
23. The TSIIC (5th respondent) filed a counter affidavit stating that for the afforestation by the petitioner as per the proposal of the petitioner, certain land was first requisitioned for diversion in Peddannavaripalli Village of Thalupula Mandal, Ananthapur District for compensatory afforestation and the 4th respondent had filed a requisition for alienation of the said land.
24. According to the 5th respondent, the District Forest Officer, Ananthapur submitted a report that only 1100 Acres are suitable as against 1576.80 Acres identified and so the 4th respondent has filed revised requisition and in addition to the above mentioned DKT/Government land, land acquisition proceedings were also MSR,J & TA,J ::8:: wp_38358_2018 initiated for acquisition of Acs.9.29 cts. of patta land located in the middle of the Government land at Rs.1.20 lakhs per acre.
25. It is contended that in that connection, a sum of Rs.5,98,10,850/- was deposited with the District Collector, Ananthapur towards acquisition of the patta land at Nellipaka Village and alienation of Government/DKT land at Peddannavaripalli Village in Ananthapur District for compensatory afforestation.
26. It is contended that the forest land proposed for diversion for allotment to the petitioner for establishment of pulp and paper unit is in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Telangana and the land proposed for compensatory afforestation at Peddannavaripalli Village of Ananthapur District in lieu of the diversion of forest land is in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Andhra Pradesh; and since the amounts were deposited by the petitioner for a specific purpose with a view to procure land for compensatory afforestation in lieu of diversion of forest lands at Sarapaka Village of Bhurgampahad Mandal of Khammam District for allotment to the petitioner, and the purpose for which the amount was deposited by the petitioner was not fulfilled, the 5th respondent was requesting that the matter be looked into and refund of Rs.4.5 Crores be arranged to TSIIC in the event the land at Peddannavaripalli Village cannot be spared for the purpose of afforestation.
MSR,J & TA,J
::9:: wp_38358_2018
27. It is contended that the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores deposited by the petitioner with Warangal Zone of APIIC was actually utilized for payment of ex gratia and the liability of TSIIC was Warangal Zone specific to the petitioner should have been adjusted in 2007 itself by the erstwhile APIIC Head Office; and as it has been identified now, the relevant adjustment entry has been passed and mailed to APIIC on 18.11.2020 with a request to incorporate the entry appropriately.
28. It is contended that since the lands acquired by the erstwhile APIIC at Peddannavaripalli Village, Talupula Mandal, Ananthapur District have been spared for the purpose of compensatory afforestation by APIIC, the APIIC alone should refund Rs.4.5 Crores to the petitioner and the TSIIC has no liability in that regard.
29. According to the 5th respondent, on the basis of location of the land identified for compensatory afforestation at Peddannavaripalli Village of Ananthapur District, only the APIIC should make the refund and not the 5th respondent.
Consideration by the Court:
30. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner wanted to expand its paper unit in Sarapaka Village near Bhadrachalam and made a proposal in 2005.
31. Under the said proposal, the APIIC had furnished a proposal for diversion of 445 hectares of forest land in Kistasagar Reserved Forest of Paloncha Forest Division in Khammam District to the petitioner MSR,J & TA,J ::10:: wp_38358_2018 and an extent of 1576.80 Acres in Peddannavaripalli, Talupula Mandal of Ananthapur District was also identified by APIIC for compensatory afforestation.
32. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.4.5 Crores by the Nodal Agency, APIIC, and the petitioner did deposit the said amount through a cheque No.066843 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank dt.29.05.2007 through its letter dt.31.05.2007 in favour of APIIC.
33. The receipt of the said amount by APIIC by the Head Office at Hyderabad is admitted by all the respondents.
34. It is further admitted that the proposal of the petitioner for expansion of its pulp and paper project at Sarapaka Village was not approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi on 21-22 December, 2012. Consequently, the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores ought to have been refunded to the petitioner by the APIIC, but it did not do so.
35. Thereafter, bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh occurred with effect from 02.06.2014 under the Act and new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh came to be created. As a consequence of the same, the forest lands proposed for diversion for allotment to the petitioner's Unit's expansion fell in the State of Telangana and the land identified for compensatory afforestation in Ananthapur District remained in the residual State of Andhra Pradesh.
MSR,J & TA,J
::11:: wp_38358_2018
36. Another consequence of the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was that the APIIC, which was acting as a Nodal Agency in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh prior to the Act coming into effect, was also bifurcated into TSIIC and APIIC. Post bifurcation of the State also, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected on 31.12.2015 by the Forest Advisory Committee.
37. The sum of Rs.4.5 Crores was received from the petitioner by the Head Office of the APIIC towards to carry forward the proposal of the petitioner set out above. When the Forest Advisory committee did not approve it and the proposal did not fructify, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the same with interest. The respondents cannot retain the same because the payment was not intended by petitioner to be gratuitous and there has been total failure of consideration and such retention would be clearly unjust enrichment. Sec.70 of the Contract Act, 1872 comes into play and the respondents should restitute the said amount with interest to the petitioner.
38. The concept of unjust enrichment has been explained by the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana1 as retention of a benefit by a person which is unjust or inequitable. The Supreme Court explained:
"31. ... The issue concerning unjust enrichment was dealt with by this Court very succinctly in Indian Council for 1 (2018) 6 SCC 215 at page 277 MSR,J & TA,J ::12:: wp_38358_2018 Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India2 as under: (SCC pp.
234-36, paras 151-56 & 159-161) "151. Unjust enrichment has been defined as:
'Unjust enrichment.--A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.' See Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edn. (Bryan A. Garner) at p. 1573. A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an "unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience."
152. "Unjust enrichment" has been defined by the court as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.
153. Unjust enrichment is 'the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience'. A defendant may be liable 'even when the defendant retaining the benefit is not a wrongdoer' and 'even though he may have received [it] honestly in the first instance'. (Schock v. Nash3, A 2d, 232-33.)
154. Unjust enrichment occurs when the defendant wrongfully secures a benefit or passively receives a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain. In the leading case of Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd4 Lord Wright stated the principle thus: (AC p. 61) '... [A]ny civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment 2 (2011) 8 SCC 161 3 732 A 2d 2017 (Delaware, 1999) 4 (1943) AC 32(HL) MSR,J & TA,J ::13:: wp_38358_2018 or unjust benefit that is to prevent a man from retaining the money of or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi- contract or restitution.'
155. Lord Denning also stated in Nelson v. Larholt5 as under: (KB p. 343) '... It is no longer appropriate, however, to draw a distinction between law and equity. Principles have now to be stated in the light of their combined effect. Nor is it necessary to canvass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend on the substance of the right, not on whether they can be fitted into a particular framework. The right here is not peculiar to equity or contract or tort, but falls naturally within the important category of cases where the court orders restitution, if the justice of the case so requires.'
156. The above principle has been accepted in India. This Court in several cases has applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
* * *
159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. However, although unjust enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a 5 (1948) 1 KB 339 MSR,J & TA,J ::14:: wp_38358_2018 person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.
160. While the term "restitution" was considered by the Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.6 other cases excerpted later, the term "unjust enrichment" came to be considered in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE7. This Court said: (Sahakari Khand case (20 supra) SCC p. 748, para 31) '31. ... "unjust enrichment" means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. "Unjust enrichment"
occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone else.'
161. The terms "unjust enrichment" and "restitution" are like the two shades of green--one leaning towards yellow and the other towards blue. With restitution, so long as the deprivation of the other has not been fully compensated for, injustice to that extent remains. Which label is appropriate under which circumstances would depend on the facts of the particular case before the court. The courts have wide powers to grant restitution, and more so where it relates to misuse or non-compliance with court orders."
39. In the instant case, retention of the amounts paid by the petitioner by the respondents is against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience and clearly amounts to unjust enrichment of the respondents particularly when such a retention is arbitrary and also violates Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
40. Since the payment had been made to the APIIC, an organization of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, naturally both the State of 6 (2003) 8 SCC 648 7 (2005) 3 SCC 738 MSR,J & TA,J ::15:: wp_38358_2018 Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be made liable for the amount which was paid by the petitioner to then APIIC.
41. The next question is which of the two, the APIIC or the TSIIC or both are liable to make the refund to the petitioner.
42. If we look at the stands taken in the counter-affidavits filed by APIIC and TSICC, each of them wants the other to make the refund for different reasons. In our considered opinion, the reasons assigned by each of them to make only the other party liable, cannot be accepted.
43. Coming to the reasons assigned by the APIIC, it has relied on the Certificate of the Expert Committee with respect to de-merger of assets and liabilities signed by TSIIC and APIIC and pleads that since the payment of Rs.4.5 Crores was transferred by the Head Office of APIIC to the Warangal Zone in the financial year 2007-08 itself, and as per the scheme of de-merger, all assets and properties of Telangana Region of APIIC stand transferred only to the TSIIC, the TSIIC alone should be liable.
44. According to the reasons given by the TSIIC, since the payment was made for compensatory afforestation purposes in Ananthapur District in lieu of diversion of forest land in the State of Telangana, and since Ananthapur District falls in the jurisdiction of the State of Andhra Pradesh, on 18.11.2020 the TSIIC made a book entry making MSR,J & TA,J ::16:: wp_38358_2018 APIIC responsible for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner, and so the TSIIC is not liable and only APIIC is liable.
45. We do not agree with both these contentions for the reason that the petitioner had made the payment for allotment of land in Sarapaka Village of Bhurgampahad Mandal near Bhadrachalam, which is post-bifurcation, falling in the State of Telangana by de-notifying forest land and compensatory afforestation was to be done in 1500 acres identified by APIIC in Ananthapur District, which has fallen post-bifurcation in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
46. Therefore, APIIC cannot link the deposit made by the petitioner to the location of the expansion unit proposed by the petitioner, i.e., Warangal Zone in the State of Telangana so as to transfer liability to the TSIIC alone. The TSIIC also cannot link the deposit made by the petitioner to the location of the location of place of compensatory afforestation in Ananthapur District, in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh so as to make APIIC alone liable to make the refund.
47. Section 53 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 states:
"53. Assets and liabilities of State undertakings: (1) The assets and liabilities relating to any commercial or industrial undertaking of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, where such undertaking or part thereof is exclusively located in, or its operations are confined to, a local area, shall pass to the State in which that area is included on the appointed day, irrespective of the location of its headquarters:
MSR,J & TA,J ::17:: wp_38358_2018 Provided that where the operation of such undertaking becomes inter-State by virtue of the provisions of Part II, the assets and liabilities of--
(a) the operational units of the undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on location basis;
and
(b) the headquarters of such undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on the basis of population ratio.
(2) Upon apportionment of the assets and liabilities, such assets and liabilities shall be transferred in physical form on mutual agreement or by making payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by the successor States."(emphasis supplied)
48. Since the APIIC of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation under Part-II of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 became an inter-State Government Undertaking, the Proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act would be attracted.
49. Since the petitioner made the payment of Rs.4.5.Crores to the Head office at Hyderabad on 31.5.2007, the liability to refund the said amount to the petitioner would have to be apportioned between both the successor Undertakings i.e., APIIC as well as TSIIC on the basis of population ratio i.e., 58.32 : 41.68 under Clause (b) of the Proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act.
50. Admittedly, the erstwhile APIIC is an Undertaking referred to at Serial No.19 of the IX Schedule to the Act.
MSR,J & TA,J
::18:: wp_38358_2018
51. As explained in G.Rama Mohan Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh8 by a Division Bench of this Court in the context of the provisions of the Act, the Parliament was conscious that the assets and liabilities of the existing bodies corporate would, after bifurcation, be transferred to other bodies corporate carrying on the same business. In view of the language used in Section 74 of the Act, the legislative intent was not for the assets and liabilities of the entities in the IX Schedule to be transferred to the successor State Governments, but for its apportionment between the two successor States, and for such assets and liabilities to be utilized by the bodies corporate to be created by the successor States. The Bench rejected the contention that the legislative intent was for the assets and liabilities of the IX Schedule entities to be apportioned only between the Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and observed that if such were to be the intention, one would have to presume that the Parliament intended to bring to an end the existing corporations and that they should cease to carry on operations after the appointed date, and for the assets and liabilities of these entities including the employees of the Corporations/Companies to be apportioned only between both the State Governments. It held that such a construction would not find support from a plain reading of the provisions of the 2014 Act and that it was not the legislative intent. In observed in para 130 as under:
"130. It is evident from Section 74 that Parliament was conscious that the assets and liabilities of the existing bodies 8 2017 (6) ALD 103 MSR,J & TA,J ::19:: wp_38358_2018 corporate would, after bifurcation, be transferred to other bodies corporate carrying on the same business. The legislative intent, therefore, is not for the assets and liabilities, of the entities in the Ninth Schedule, to be transferred to the successor State Governments, but for its apportionment between the two successor States, and for such assets and liabilities to be utilised by the bodies corporate to be created by the successor States. The contention, that the legislative intent was for the assets and liabilities, of the Ninth Schedule entities, to be apportioned only between both the Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, would require us to presume that Parliament intended to bring to an end the existing Corporations, for it to cease to carry on its operations after the appointed date, and only for the assets and liabilities of these entities, including the employees of the Corporations/Companies/Societies, to be apportioned between both the State Governments. Such a construction neither finds support from a plain reading of the provisions of the 2014 Central Act nor is it the legislative intent."
52. Therefore, though in the Proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act, the words used are "shall be apportioned between the two successor States", it has to be interpreted as "apportioned between the bodies corporate created by the successor States".
53. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that applying the Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 53 of the Act, since the APIIC was an Undertaking which had become inter-State by virtue of the provisions of the Part II of the Act, i.e., the reorganization of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the assets and liabilities of the Head Quarters of the APIIC which received the payment of Rs.4.5 Crores on 31.05.2007 from the petitioner would have to be apportioned between APIIC and TSIIC in the ratio 58.32 : 41.68 as mentioned in Section MSR,J & TA,J ::20:: wp_38358_2018 2(h) of the Act with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the said date till the date of payment.
54. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores paid by the petitioner on 31.05.2007 shall be refunded by APIIC (4th respondent) and TSIIC (5th respondent) in the ratio of 58.32 : 41.68 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the said amount by the petitioner, i.e., 31.05.2007 till the date of actual payment to the petitioner, which shall be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both respondents 4 and 5 shall also pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner.
55. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J _______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 29 -01-2021 Svv