In the backdrop of the government’s decision to establish three capitals, it has become necessary to examine the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 which contains a specific provision with regard to the establishment of the new capital for bifurcated Andhra Pradesh. A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 took effect on 2.6.2014. Ten districts falling within erstwhile Telangana area were formed into a new state called the State of Telangana and the remaining districts comprise the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Sec. 5(1) of the Act contemplates that on and from the appointed day, Hyderabad in the existing state of Andhra Pradesh shall be the common capital of State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh for such period not exceeding ten years. Sub Sec.2 contemplates that after the expiry of that period Hyderabad shall be the capital of State of Telangana and there shall be a new capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though Sec.5(1) stipulates that Hyderabad shall be the common capital “For such period not exceeding ten years”, the period has not been determined. It has to be construed that a new capital should be formed within ten years. The word ‘capital’ contemplated under the Act should be understood as a place where the seat of Principal Administration is located. It is only in this context that it was mentioned that Hyderabad shall be a common capital.
Sec. 6 of the Act mandates that the Central Government shall constitute an expert committee to study various alternatives regarding the new capital for the successor state of Andhra Pradesh and make appropriate recommendations in a period not exceeding six months from the date of enactment of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. Pursuant to the said power, the Central government had constituted the Sivaramakrishnan committee to study various alternatives regarding new capital and the said committee had submitted a report recommending four broad clusters. (1) Vijayawada – Guntur (2) Greater Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam (3) Nellore and (4) Tripoli – Kalahasthi in Rayalaseema. The report also discloses that it had ranked Vijayawada urban area and Guntur urban areas as first and second respectively in connectivity, first & third respectively in regional development and second & third respectively in water resources. Basing on the said recommendations the present location of the capital was identified by the then government and a unanimous resolution was passed in the legislature. Thereafter, the legislature had enacted the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Act to establish the capital and develop the capital region.
Now the question that arises is as to whether the new government is empowered to reopen the issue by reconstituting a committee by itself for the same purpose or it has to request the central government to constitute a committee under Sec. 6 of the Act for making recommendations.
The State Reorganisation Act, 1956 does not contemplate any method to identify capital for respective states constituted under the said Act. Similarly, neither of the Acts under which States of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand were formed contemplate any provision for the establishment of the capital. The A.P.Reorganisation Act, 2014 specifically contemplates a provision for identifying an ideal place for the establishment of capital by appointment of a committee. Obviously the said provision was introduced taking into account the possible controversies that may crop up post bifurcation inter-se between the three areas i.e., North, Coastal and Rayalaseema.
The said power was not conferred upon the State government. The State government was given only a power to exercise choice amongst the recommendations made by the committee. The provision also mandates that the committee shall submit a report within six months. But a new capital can be established within ten years. This shows that the intention of Act was to provide sufficient time to act upon the recommendation of the committee and construct a capital.
A careful reading of Sec.6 of A.P.Reorganisation Act shows that the said provision contemplates only one capital for the entire successor state of Andhra Pradesh and the same has to be based on the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Central government. Accordingly, the Sivaramakrishnan Committee was constituted and it submitted a report. The report of the Sivaramakrishnan committee is a statutory report under Sec.6 of the Act. The word ‘alternatives’ mentioned in Sec.6 of the Act should be understood in relation to the place of setting up of Capital but cannot be interpreted to mean as more than one capital. The said report was already acted upon by the National Green Tribunal when a question was raised with regard to the present capital region. The National Green Tribunal had issued certain directions to the State government to comply with the issues pertaining to the environment.
Recently State government has appointed a committee called GN Rao Committee for the same purpose. The committee appears to have submitted a report contemplating an idea of setting up of three capitals in three regions. The said committee is not a statutory committee constituted under Sec.6 of the Act so as to decide any aspect with regard to making a recommendation for setting up of capital.
The government in the best interests of uniform development of the State may have taken a decision to establish three capitals. The major legal impediment that may arise in pursuing this be the legal sanctity of the reports submitted by GN Rao Committee. The first objection that may be raised by the persons who are opposing such an ingenious concept would be that GN Rao Committee report may not have a statutory sanctity. The same objection may also be raised in relation to the study made by the Boston Consulting Group.
The probable recourse for the government for implementation of such an ingenious policy would be to pass a resolution in the Assembly and forward the same to the Central government with a request for the constitution of a new committee under Sec.6 of the Act. The State government may also rely upon the existing Sivaramakrishnan committee. But the said committee in fact had recommended for only one capital though three preferences had been given. Now a statutory committee has to be constituted to study the aspect of the establishment of three capitals as proposed by the State government. The reports of GN Rao committee or the study of Boston Consulting Group cannot form a basis for making a decision to implement the policy of three capitals. The power to constitute a committee for making recommendations is within the domain of Central government under Sec.6 of the Act
Chittarvu Raghu, Advocate,
High Court’s of A.P. & T.S.