ORDER : 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. has filed this Writ Petition against the Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. (1st respondent), the State of Telangana (2nd respondent), the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (3rd respondent) and six Banks (respondent Nos. 4 to 9) to declare the action of the State of Telangana in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Dy-II) Department, dated 06.05.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Constitution of India and the provisions of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’) to set aside the same; and to consequently direct Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. not to operate Bank Accounts in respondent nos. 5 to 9 Banks prior to 02.06.2014 unless and until division of Assets and Liabilities is completed in terms of Section 53 of the Act. The background facts 2. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014 under the Act made by the Parliament. 3. In the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, assistance of the UNICEF was taken in 1960 to commence Integrated Milk Project focusing on organizing milk production as a subsidiary activity to augment the income of farmers, to arrange for collection of rural surplus milk at the door steps of the farmers and to provide quality milk to the urban and semi-urban consumers. 4. Initially, dairy development activities were coordinated by the Dairy Development Department of the State Government and vast dairy infrastructure was built throughout the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Thereafter, in 1973, these activities were transferred to a Corporation by name, A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 vide G.O.Ms. No. 842 (F&A) (Dairy) Department dated 14.08.1973. All the shares in the said Corporation were owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 6. In 1980, a policy-decision was taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No. 842 (F&A) (Dairy) Department dated 14.08.1973. All the shares in the said Corporation were owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 6. In 1980, a policy-decision was taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No. 551, F&RD dated 10.12.1980 to implement Operation Flood Schemes funded through “Indian Dairy Corporation” under Three-Tier cooperative structure whereunder: (i) at village level, Primary Co-operative Societies collect milk, (ii) at District level, Dairy Units process, package and market as per the directives of the Federation at State level and (iii) at the State level, the petitioner would market milk and milk products under the popular ‘Vijaya’ brand. 7. For the above operations, the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation came into existence on 1.10.1981 on being registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation (the Company) gave all its assets to the petitioner on rent of Rs. 1,000/- per annum for operational management including the manpower. 8. Thus there were two entities: (i) A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (a Society) and the (ii) A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (a Company). 9. The A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation, prior to bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh on 02.06.2014, was operating in the Districts of Anantapur, Kadapa, Chittoor, West Godavari, East Godavari and in Krishna through its member Krishnaveni Milk Union, Warangal, Khammam, Mahbubnagar, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy, Medak, Nizamabad, Karimnagar and Adilabad and also in Hyderabad. 10. After 02.06.2014, the Telangana State created its own Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation (1st respondent) vide R.C. No. 208/2016 Federation dated 04.03.2016. 11. Thereafter the A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation’s activities became confined to the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. The said entity is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 12. In the Act which was enacted on 01.03.2014 and which came into effect from 02.06.2014, the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. along with the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh were both listed at Serial Nos.73 and 70 of IX Schedule along with other Government Companies and Corporations. The contentions of petitioner 13. In the Act which was enacted on 01.03.2014 and which came into effect from 02.06.2014, the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. along with the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh were both listed at Serial Nos.73 and 70 of IX Schedule along with other Government Companies and Corporations. The contentions of petitioner 13. According to petitioner, there was a Central Dairy at Hyderabad (which was a part of the A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd) which was a Milk Products Factory with modern facilities for processing and packaging of milk and milk products to cater to the needs of consumers duly processing milk received from the Districts of the undivided Andhra Pradesh State, and it was carrying on business in the name and style of the petitioner under the popular ‘Vijaya’ brand even after 02.06.2014. 14. Petitioner contends that as the division of Assets and Liabilities of IX Schedule entities is required to be done as per Section 53 of the Act; that after 02.06.2014, the State of Andhra Pradesh sought clarification from Union of India through D.O. letter No. 20757/GAD/SR/2014 dated 02.12.2014 with regard to the division/distribution of assets and liabilities between the two States and that the Union of India has not given any clarification on the issue, and the issue is still pending with the latter. 15. Petitioner contends that while so, the State of Telangana issued the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 8 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Dy-II) Department, dated 06.05.2016, contravening the provisions of the Act and transferring the Milk Products Factory at Lalapet, Hyderabad, other Dairy buildings and Somajiguda Guest House, at Hyderabad belonging to the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. to the Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation (1st respondent). 16. Petitioner contends that these properties pertain to the ‘Headquarters’ of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd.; clarification with regard to what are the properties of the ‘Headquarters’ was pending with the Union of India; and without the consent of the petitioner, the State of Telangana acted unilaterally transferring the said properties to the 1st respondent. 16. Petitioner contends that these properties pertain to the ‘Headquarters’ of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd.; clarification with regard to what are the properties of the ‘Headquarters’ was pending with the Union of India; and without the consent of the petitioner, the State of Telangana acted unilaterally transferring the said properties to the 1st respondent. It is also contended that this is contrary to the Dispute Resolution Sub- Committee Meetings held on 30.05.2015 and 01.04.2016 communicated vide letter No. 12012/12/2014 - SR, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (CS Division) dated 09.07.2015 and 25.04.2016, and that the said G.O. should be struck down as violative of Article 14, the Act, as well as certain clauses of the Joint General Body meeting Minutes, which meeting was held on 18.12.2015. 17. Petitioner contends that the Joint General Body of the A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation consists of the Chairman (Principal Secretaries) and Senior Officials of both States; and in the meeting held on 18.05.2015, a Resolution was signed by Principal Secretaries of both States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as under: “(i) A dairy development federation has to be registered for Telangana State. (ii) Head Office sanctioned posts have to be divided as per ration (58:42) State level employees to be divided by giving one week notice (this is for other than Milk Products Factory). (iii) Head Office space to be divided by two States as per 58:42 ration to facilitate independent operation by each federation. (iv) The Assets and Liabilities regarding MPF, Hyderabad, Somajiguda Guest House, a decision will be taken after clarification from the Government of India.” 18. Petitioner contends that unless and until a clarification is received from the Government of India it was not open to the State of Telangana to issue the impugned G.O. 19. Reference is also made to a Circular No. 399/General/Admn. V/2012 dated 12.02.2016, and it is contended that the operational guidelines for smooth conduct of day-to-day operations were jointly approved and administrative orders were communicated by this proceeding. 20. Petitioner also contended that the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation had opened accounts before 2014 in respondent nos. Reference is also made to a Circular No. 399/General/Admn. V/2012 dated 12.02.2016, and it is contended that the operational guidelines for smooth conduct of day-to-day operations were jointly approved and administrative orders were communicated by this proceeding. 20. Petitioner also contended that the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation had opened accounts before 2014 in respondent nos. 4 to 9 Banks, that these accounts were in the name of the Managing Director of the said Federation; and by virtue of the impugned G.O. issued by the State of Telangana, the 1st respondent was making attempts to transfer the accounts and also open new accounts in the name of the Managing Director of the Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation (1st respondent). Petitioner contends that without apportionment of assets under Section 53 of the Act, the accounts cannot be transferred in the name of the Managing Director of the Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation (1st respondent). 21. Petitioner contends that correspondence took place between the Government of A.P. and the Government of Telangana for deletion of the Milk Products Factory, Hyderabad and other Dairy Buildings and the Somajiguda Guest House, being part of ‘Headquarters’ of erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. from G.O.Ms. No. 8, but the State of Telangana did not heed this concerns. Petitioner also contends that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh wrote a letter dated 14.06.2016 to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India by bringing to his notice the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 by the State of Telangana pending de-merger and division of assets and liabilities between the two successor States, and that response from the Union of India is awaited. G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by the State of Telangana after filing of the Writ Petition 22. After the filing of this Writ Petition on 06.07.2016, the State of Telangana issued G.O.Ms. No. 17 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (DY-II) Department dated 16.07.2016. 23. In this G.O. after extracting proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act and Section 68, it is stated as under: “Whereas, Office space at headquarter of A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Hyderabad has been divided between two States (two floors to Andhra Pradesh and two floors to Telangana State) as an interim arrangement for the convenient functioning of offices of both the States. Whereas, Telangana State has created its own Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation vide R.C. No. 208/2016 Federation dated 04.03.2016 as per the decision taken in the Joint General Body Meeting of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited held on 18.12.2015. Hence, pending apportionment of assets and liabilities of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad and A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Hyderabad, and in terms of Section 53 read with Section 68 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, as an administrative arrangement for proper functioning of operational units of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad which are located in the State of Telangana including Milk Product Factory at Hyderabad and Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad will function under the administrative control of Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the G.O.Ms. No. 08 dated 06.05.2016 is clarified.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Thus, the above Government Order suggested that vide G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.7.2016, the earlier G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 issued by the State of Telangana transferring the operational units of erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad which are located in the State of Telangana including Milk Product Factory at Hyderabad and Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad to the 1st respondent is only a transitory arrangement, pending apportionment of assets and liabilities of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. Hyderabad and the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation, Hyderabad in terms of Section 53 and 68 of the Act. The communication dated 26.08.2016 from the Government of India 25. It appears that the Government of India issued a communication on 26.08.2016 informing both Chief Secretaries of both States that in the Minutes of the meeting of the Dispute Resolution Committee held on 20.07.2016, it was emphasized that both States should maintain status quo and not resort to any unilateral action till the bifurcation of assets and liabilities along with employees is finalized as per the Act. In the said communication, it was further stated that the word ‘status quo’ used in the Minutes of the said meeting held on 20.07.2016 meant the position as on 01.06.2014 i.e. before the date of bifurcation and both the States were requested to maintain their earlier position as it was on 01.06.2014. 26. Taking note of this, a Division Bench of this Court on 06.09.2016 asked the response of the State of Telangana. 26. Taking note of this, a Division Bench of this Court on 06.09.2016 asked the response of the State of Telangana. The 1st counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent filed on 6.9.2016. 27. The Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (1st respondent) filed a counter-affidavit dated 06.09.2016 enclosing copy of the above G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 where it was stated that arrangement made in G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 6.5.2016 was an interim arrangement. 28. It also stated that common Bank Accounts of the two States were stopped as per the letters given to respondent nos.4 to 9 by the Managing Director of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation (petitioner). 29. It is further stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs had held a meeting on 30.05.2015 with the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, regarding the definition of the term ‘Headquarter’ occurring in Section 53 of the Act and the Minutes of the said meeting indicate that the said Ministry had agreed that ‘Headquarters’ would include where the Chief Executive Officer/Chairman /Directors of the Company sit and operate for the whole State. 30. It is also contended that this clarification was not accepted by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of India recorded that the issue will be decided later, and the same position continues even as on 06.09.2016. 31. It is also stated that apportionment of assets and liabilities of IX Schedule Institutions under the Act between the successor States is under consideration of the Committee appointed by both Governments. The subsequent communication dated 18.05.2017 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India (3rd respondent) to both States: 32. On 18-05-2017, the following communication was made by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India regarding the interpretation of the term ‘Head Quarters’ which is different from the one stated earlier on 30.5.2015. It states: “Office Memorandum Subject: Definition of the ‘Headquarter’ in respect of bifurcation of assets and liabilities of the four Institutions/Corporations listed under Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. *** *** *** The definition of the ‘Headquarter’ for the bifurcation of the assets and liabilities of the Institutions/Corporations listed under Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 has been examined in this Ministry in consultation with the Ld. Solicitor General of India. *** *** *** The definition of the ‘Headquarter’ for the bifurcation of the assets and liabilities of the Institutions/Corporations listed under Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 has been examined in this Ministry in consultation with the Ld. Solicitor General of India. Accordingly, the undersigned is directed to convey the following in this regard: (i) In the case of one single comprehensive State Undertaking (which includes the headquarters and the operational units in one common facility) which is exclusively located in, or its operations are confined to one local area, it shall be apportioned on the basis of location as per sub-section 91) of Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. However, if the said State Undertaking’s operations are inter-State, then as per the proviso to Section 53, the headquarters, i.e. the principal office of the Undertaking is to be apportioned on population ratio and the operational units are to be apportioned on location basis. (ii) In the case of more than one common facility such as workshops, guest houses, and operational plants etc. such entities cannot be construed to be part of headquarter. The term ‘Headquarter’ would be co-terminous with the principal office of the Undertaking as per its ordinary dictionary meaning. Therefore, in such a case, the operational units and headquarters would be apportioned as per the proviso to section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.” 33. The petitioner does not accept this interpretation, but the respondents 1 and 2 contend that this interpretation of the term ‘Head Quarters’ is correct. We shall deal with that aspect a little later. The stand of the Union of India (3rd respondent) 34. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India (3rd respondent) has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit in this Writ Petition though more than 4 years have elapsed. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that the above Office Memorandum dated 18.5.2017 contents be taken as the stand of the Union of India in the matter. The second counter-affidavit of the Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited (1st respondent) 35. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that the above Office Memorandum dated 18.5.2017 contents be taken as the stand of the Union of India in the matter. The second counter-affidavit of the Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited (1st respondent) 35. While admitting that the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited had Units in Districts which fall in the new State of Telangana and in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and that the operations of the said entity were inter State, it is stated that since it is listed at S. No. 73 of the IX Schedule to the Act, apportionment of assets and liabilities should be done as per Section 53 of the Act. 36. It is then stated that the Milk Products Factory and the buildings at Somajiguda, Hyderabad are exclusively located at Hyderabad in the Telangana State and its operations are confined to the local area. It is stated that the operation of the Milk Products Factory, Hyderabad was purely to cater to the needs of the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and to the attached Dairy Units in the surrounding areas of Hyderabad. 37. According to the 1st respondent, the factory at Hyderabad is located separately at Lalapet with clear demarcation, with due fencing, Security setup etc and it is not a part of the Head Quarters i.e. Administrative Office of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, at Lalapet at any point of time. It is also stated that the Milk Products Factory is managed separately by a General Manager, like any other Factory which cannot be distributed as it does not come under the definition of Head Quarters. 38. It is then contended that clarification regarding definition of ‘Head Quarters’ was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with Ministry of Law and Justice vide Minutes of meeting dated 09-07-2015 and so no clarification was pending with the Government of India. It is stated that in the said Minutes, the following clarification was issued: “The Headquarter includes where CEO/Chairman/Director of Company sit and operate for the whole State but did not agree with the interpretation that the properties which are commonly used by the entire State will also be part of the Head Quarter.” 39. It is stated that in the said Minutes, the following clarification was issued: “The Headquarter includes where CEO/Chairman/Director of Company sit and operate for the whole State but did not agree with the interpretation that the properties which are commonly used by the entire State will also be part of the Head Quarter.” 39. It is stated that a decision was taken to constitute a new Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited for the State of Telangana in a joint General Body Meeting of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited attended by the Principal Secretaries of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development of both States and the 1st respondent was registered on 04.03.2016. 40. It is stated that thereafter G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 was issued by the State of Telangana ordering that all Milk/Dairy Units, Chilling Centers, Feed Mixing Plant, Gadwal, Milk Products Factory, Hyderabad which are exclusively located in Telangana State are transferred to the 1st respondent. 41. Having said so, the 1st respondent has also referred to G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 said to clarify G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 mentioning that G.O.Ms. No. 8 was issued pending apportionment of assets and liabilities of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited. 42. It is denied that G.O.Ms. No. 08 dated 06.05.2016 was issued unilaterally or that there is any violation of procedure or illegality or arbitrariness in issuing the said G.O. 43. It is further stated that the Bank accounts of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited were frozen by the Banks pursuant to letter dated 01.06.2016 of the Managing Director of the petitioner. It is stated that more than Rs.29.00 crores of funds relating to Telangana State were frozen in the common Bank accounts in respondent Nos. 4 to 9 Banks and difficulties are being faced in carrying out regular activities of the 1st respondent. It is also stated that more than Rs. 25.00 crores of G.O.I. Scheme funds relating to RKVY and NPDD and Telangana State Milk Incentive amount to farmers were also frozen. 44. 4 to 9 Banks and difficulties are being faced in carrying out regular activities of the 1st respondent. It is also stated that more than Rs. 25.00 crores of G.O.I. Scheme funds relating to RKVY and NPDD and Telangana State Milk Incentive amount to farmers were also frozen. 44. According to 1st respondent, petitioner had unilaterally given franchise to a private Dairy M/s. Sambasiva Dairy Products (India) Private Limited in Balanagar Mandal of Mahabubnagar District and had started milk sales in the brand name ‘Vijaya’ in the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad with an intention to damage the market sales of the 1st respondent’s ‘Vijaya’ milk and had also issued a paper notification on 02.06.2016 inviting tenders for sale of bulk Raw Chilled Buffalo milk and cow milk acting independently and unilaterally by depositing their milk sale amounts in their accounts. 45. It is contended that there is a Milk Products Factory at Vijayawada and several other Districts of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh like the Milk Products factory at Hyderabad. It was denied that surplus milk from both States have to be processed and manufactured as pouch milk and milk products at the Milk Product Factory at Hyderabad. 46. It is stated that the Administrative Office of the undivided A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited consists of ground + four floors and that the ground floor is being shared in common, that first and second floors are in occupation of 1st respondent and third and fourth floors are in occupation of the petitioner and the office of the Managing Director of the petitioner is in the third and fourth floors of the Administrative Building. 47. It is contended that as per Section 53(1)(a) of the Act, the operational Units of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited are to be apportioned between the two successor States on location basis. Contentions of the Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Advocate General for the State of Telangana 48. Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the State of Telangana is not empowered to unilaterally transfer any assets of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016; that the entire basis of G.O.Ms. Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the State of Telangana is not empowered to unilaterally transfer any assets of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016; that the entire basis of G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 is the exclusive location of the items mentioned in the said G.O. within the new State of Telangana; that the Milk Products Factory at Hyderabad was a ‘common facility’ and has to be treated along with the ‘Guest House’ as an asset attached to ‘Head Quarters’ and should be apportioned as per proviso (b) to Section 53(1) of the Act. According to him, erecting of fencing, Security setup, compound wall and management through a General Manager of the Milk Products Factory cannot make the Milk Products Factory at Lalapet distinct from Head Quarters. He also submitted that, under the Act, the Union of India (3rd respondent) is not assigned any role to adjudicate any dispute in regard to apportionment of assets and liabilities in respect of Schedule IX Institutions; and any clarification issued by the 3rd respondent is not binding on the petitioner or on this Court. The powers of the Union of India under the Act are only w.r.t. apportionment of assets and liabilities between the successor States and not to the PSUs. He pointed out that while G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 seems to indicate a final transfer of assets by the State of Telangana to the 1st respondent, the clarificatory G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 makes it amply clear that it is not final and that it is only a temporary arrangement pending apportionment of assets and liabilities of erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited and only an Administrative arrangement was made. He also pointed out that the Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited cannot be said to be intended only for people of Telangana and that people from Andhra Pradesh Region were always using the said facility and since it is not an ‘operational Unit’ it has to be treated as part of ‘Head Quarters’ and proviso (b) of Section 53(1) of the Act should be applied. According to him, to determine whether an asset is part of ‘Head Quarters’ proximity of location/distance from seat of Governance, is not material. According to him, to determine whether an asset is part of ‘Head Quarters’ proximity of location/distance from seat of Governance, is not material. He relied upon the decision of a Division Bench in G. Ayyappa Shiva Kumar vs. State of Telangana, Order dated 22-1-2021 in W.P. No. 21366 of 2020 (DB) dealing with division of assets of Telugu Academy which is also a Schedule IX Institution and the decision of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education vs. Union of India, (2016) 6 SCC 635 . In essence, his contention is that the term ‘Head Quarters’ in its meaning should encompass the assets and liabilities pertaining to the Head Office as well as its associated common facilities established by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh for use by the entire combined State and have to be apportioned between the two successor entities i.e. the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the basis of population ratio. According to him, this is because common facilities were created over a period of time by investing resources from the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh to cater to the requirements of the entire State demands and so both successor entities should get their fair share. 49. Learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana refuted the said contentions. According to him, a Division Bench of this Court in G. Rama Mohan Rao and Another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 (6) ALD 103 (DB) had held that the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act requires the assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Institutions which have become inter State by virtue of provisions of Part II of the Act, to be apportioned (other than the Head Quarter) on the basis of location in either of the States; and that the word ‘Head Quarters’ used in Section 53(1) of the Act and its proviso, though not defined in the Act, can only mean the office that serves as the administrative center of the undertaking; and such Head Quarters are required to the apportioned between the two successor States on the basis of population ratio. According to him, the Milk Product Factory as well as the Guest House of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited are ‘operational units’ and they cannot be said to be ‘Head Quarters’ or administrative centers. According to him, the Milk Product Factory as well as the Guest House of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited are ‘operational units’ and they cannot be said to be ‘Head Quarters’ or administrative centers. According to him, the Union of India is empowered to interpret the word ‘Head Quarters’ and such interpretation is binding on the petitioner because the petitioner itself had sought a clarification from the Union of India. According to him, there is no illegality in the State of Telangana issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016. The points for consideration 50. On the basis of the above contentions, the following questions arise for consideration: “(a) Whether the State of Telangana was entitled to issue G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 transferring certain assets of erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited to the 1st respondent? (b) Whether G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by the State of Telangana clarifying G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 and stating that what was done under G.O.Ms. No. 8 was only a tentative administrative arrangement pending apportionment of assets and liabilities between petitioner and 1st respondent is binding on the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent? (c) Whether, under the Act, the Union of India has any jurisdiction in the apportionment of assets and liabilities of institutions and undertakings mentioned in Schedule IX to the Act and whether such a jurisdiction extends to adjudicating disputes in that regard between the successor States or their entities like the petitioner and the 1st respondent? (d) If the Union of India has no power under the Act to adjudicate any dispute in relation to apportionment of assets and liabilities of institutions and undertakings mentioned in Schedule IX to the Act like the petitioner, who can decide the said disputes? (e) Whether the Milk Products Factory at Hyderabad and the Guest House of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad can be treated as ‘common facilities’ relatable to the Head Quarters and so liable to be apportioned between petitioner and 1st respondent in the population ratio under proviso (b) to Section 53(1) of the Act?” Consideration by the Court: Point (a): 51. We shall first consider the following point: “(a) Whether the State of Telangana was entitled to issue G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 transferring certain assets of erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited to the 1st respondent?” 52. We shall first consider the following point: “(a) Whether the State of Telangana was entitled to issue G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 transferring certain assets of erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited to the 1st respondent?” 52. It is not in dispute that the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad is an Institution mentioned at Serial No. 73 of Schedule IX to the Act. 53. The apportionment of Assets and Liabilities of such institutions is governed by Part VI of the Act, and in particular by Section 53 thereof. This is specifically stated in Section 68 of the Act. Section 68 states: “68. Provisions for various companies and corporations: (1) The companies and corporations specified in the Ninth Schedule constituted for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of this section. (2) The assets, rights and liabilities of the companies and corporations referred to in sub-section (1) shall be apportioned between the successor States in the manner provided in Section 53.” (Emphasis supplied) 54. Section 53 states as under: “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: 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. (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.” 55. (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.” 55. A reading of these provisions does not indicate who should apportion the assets and liabilities of a Schedule IX Institution like A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad between the successor entities of both States. 56. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, and in the submissions of the learned Advocate-General for the State of Telangana, no provision of the Act is brought to the notice of the Court empowering the State of Telangana to take action in the manner indicated in G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 by transferring assets of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad to the 1st respondent on the basis of exclusive location in the State of Telangana. 57. It is not the case of the State of Telangana that the State of Andhra Pradesh or the petitioner had agreed to such action by the State of Telangana prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016. 58. In Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (2 supra), the Supreme Court had dealt with an Institution in item No. 27 of X Schedule by name ‘Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education’ and the apportionment of its assets and liabilities in the face of a similar unilateral action taken by the Government of Telangana/Telangana State Council of Higher Education in directing the Bankers of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education to freeze the accounts. The Bankers had obliged the said request of the Government of Telangana/Telangana State Council of Higher Education. A Writ Petition was filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education in the High Court of Hyderabad for both States and the High Court by it’s judgment dated 1.5.2015 had accepted the plea of the Government of Telangana/Telangana State Council of Higher Education that all the amounts in the bank accounts belong to the Telangana State Council of Higher Education because of the location of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education at Hyderabad in Telangana area of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Reversing the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that when an existing State is bifurcated to form two new States, there must be an equitable bifurcation of the assets and liabilities of the statutory bodies among the two successor States as well, to ensure welfare of the public at large residing within these territories; the State of Telangana cannot claim ownership over the entire funds and assets of the erstwhile A.P. State Council of Higher Education; such was not the intention of the Parliament while enacting the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and Section 47 of the Act which provides for such equitable apportionment of assets and liabilities among the successor States cannot be rendered useless and nugatory. The Supreme Court held that merely on account of the fact that the institution, namely, the erstwhile A.P. State Council of Higher Education happened to be in Hyderabad, which is now part of Telangana, there cannot be complete takeover of assets of the erstwhile A.P. State Council of Higher Education by the Telangana State Council for Higher Education. It directed bifurcation of the assets of the said Organization in the ratio 58:42 between the successor entities and directed the Banks to defreeze the Bank accounts. Though the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana sought to distinguish this decision on the ground that it related to a Schedule X Institution, we see no reason why the logic/ratio of the said decision should not be applied to a Schedule IX “Institution” like the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited in Schedule IX. 59. Thus, the action of the State of Telangana in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 is not supported by any provision of the Act and is contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court w.r.t. bifurcation of institutions and it also appears to be unilateral, as it is not by consent. Therefore, the said G.O. cannot be said to be binding on the State of Andhra Pradesh or the petitioner. 60. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that the State of Telangana had no jurisdiction to unilaterally issue G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 and such action is contrary to the principle of equitable distribution of assets and liabilities laid down in the Act. 61. Therefore, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent nos. 1 and 2. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 and such action is contrary to the principle of equitable distribution of assets and liabilities laid down in the Act. 61. Therefore, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Point (b): 62. We shall next consider the following question: “(b) Whether G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by the State of Telangana clarifying G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 and stating that what was done under G.O.Ms. No. 8 was only a tentative arrangement pending apportionment of assets and liabilities between petitioner and 1st respondent is binding on the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent?” 63. The contents of G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by the State of Telangana indicate that the said G.O. was issued to clarify G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016. 64. In the G.O.Ms. No. 17, reference is made to both Sections 53 and 68 of the Act, and it is clearly stated as under: “Whereas, Office space at headquarter of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad has been divided between two States (two floors to Andhra Pradesh and two floors to Telangana State) as an interim arrangement for the convenient functioning of offices of both the States. Whereas, Telangana State has created its own Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation vide R.C. No. 208/2016 Federation dated 04.03.2016 as per the decision taken in the Joint General Body Meeting of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited held on 18.12.2015. Hence, pending apportionment of assets and liabilities of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad and A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Hyderabad, and in terms of Section 53 read with Section 68 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, as an administrative arrangement for proper functioning of operational units of A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad which are located in the State of Telangana including Milk Product Factory at Hyderabad and Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad will function under the administrative control of Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the G.O.Ms. No. 08 dated 06.05.2016 is clarified.” (Emphasis supplied) 65. Probably realizing that its unilateral action in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 would cause problems in its relations with the State of Andhra Pradesh, as a measure of conciliation, the State of Telangana appears to have issued G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 clarifying that what it did while issuing G.O.Ms. No. 08 dated 06.05.2016 is clarified.” (Emphasis supplied) 65. Probably realizing that its unilateral action in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 would cause problems in its relations with the State of Andhra Pradesh, as a measure of conciliation, the State of Telangana appears to have issued G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 clarifying that what it did while issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 is only a “interim arrangement” made “pending apportionment of Assets and Liabilities of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad.” 66. Now we shall refer to the later change in the attitude of the Union of India communicated through Office Memorandum F. No. 12012/12/2014 - SR dated 18.05.2017. 67. An attempt is made in the counter-affidavits filed by the 1st respondent to justify G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 on the basis of an alleged clarification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (3rd respondent) on 04.06.2016 and also again through Office Memorandum F. No. 12012/12/2014 - SR dated 18.05.2017 regarding the interpretation of the term “Headquarters.” 68. In our opinion, the earlier G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 6.5.2016 cannot be supported on the basis of any clarification issued by the Union of India on 18.5.2017 after 06.05.2016; and the language of G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 6.5.2-016 clearly indicates that transfer of assets was made on the basis of exclusive location of the assets mentioned therein in the State of Telangana, the State of Telangana had issued it unilaterally even before the apportionment of assets and liabilities between petitioner and 1st respondent under Section 53. 69. In fact, as we shall presently show in our discussion under Point (c) below, even the Union of India (3rd respondent) is not entrusted with any statutory powers in respect of “institutions” to express any opinion on the interpretation of any term used in Sec. 53 of the Act, or bind either of the States or their successor entities or this Court by any such interpretation of any term used in the Act. 70. Accordingly, we hold that G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 accepting the transfer of assets to the 1st respondent as a temporary arrangement binds the respondent nos.1 and 2 and that only an interim arrangement was made under G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 for administration purposes, and the said action under G.O.Ms. 70. Accordingly, we hold that G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 accepting the transfer of assets to the 1st respondent as a temporary arrangement binds the respondent nos.1 and 2 and that only an interim arrangement was made under G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 for administration purposes, and the said action under G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 did not result in any final allocation of assets and liabilities between the petitioner and 1st respondent. 71. In any event, if G.O.Ms. No. 8 dated 06.05.2016 is to be interpreted as final allocation of assets and liabilities, the said action of the State of Telangana is wholly without jurisdiction under the Act and does not bind the State of Andhra Pradesh or the petitioner because it is a unilateral action of the State of Telangana, without consent of the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is not permitted under the Act by any provision of Law. Point (c): 72. Now, we shall consider Point (c) which is as under: “(c) Whether the Union of India, under the Act, has any jurisdiction in the apportionment of assets and liabilities of institutions and undertakings mentioned in Schedule IX to the Act and whether such a jurisdiction extends to adjudicating disputes in that regard between the successor States or their entities like the petitioner and the 1st respondent?” 73. The Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the Union of India has been conferred a limited power under Section 71 of the Act in respect of IX and X schedule institutions and that it has no power to interpret any provision of the Act so as to bind the petitioner or the State of Andhra Pradesh. 74. But the Advocate-General for the State of Telangana vehemently contended that the Central Governments has power under Section 47 (4) and/or Section 66 not only to interpret any provision of the Act, but it has also got power to adjudicate disputes between the successor entities of Schedule IX Institutions. 75. Section 71 of the Act on which the petitioner relies on states: “71. Certain provisions for companies: Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the Central Government may, for each of the companies specified in the Ninth Schedule to this Act, issue directions: (a) regarding the division of the interests and shares of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in the Company between the successor States. Certain provisions for companies: Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the Central Government may, for each of the companies specified in the Ninth Schedule to this Act, issue directions: (a) regarding the division of the interests and shares of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in the Company between the successor States. (b) requiring the reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the Company so as to give adequate representation to the successor States.” 76. Section 71 and Section 68 (already extracted above) occur in Part VII of the Act and deal with distribution of assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Institutions. The limited power conferred on the Union of India under Section 71 is to issue directions with regard to: (a) division of the interests and shares of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in a Company mentioned in the IX Schedule between the successor States and (b) reconstitution of the Board of Directors of a Company mentioned in the IX Schedule so as to give adequate representation to the successor States. 77. We agree with the contention of the Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for the petitioner, that the Union of India has only the limited power of division of shares and reconstitution of the Board mentioned in Section 71 with regard to Institutions/Companies like the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad mentioned in Schedule IX of the Act, and that it has no other role conferred by the Act with regard to apportionment of assets and liabilities between the successor entities of a IX Schedule Institution. Consequently it has no adjudicatory power to interpret a particular provision in favour of or against any successor entity. 78. The position however is slightly different with regard to apportionment of assets and liabilities of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States of Telangana and residuary State of Andhra Pradesh as opposed to the successor entities of both these States in relation to apportionment of assets and liabilities of the Schedule IX Institutions like A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. 79. Section 47 and Section 66 of the Act quoted by the Advocate- General for the State of Telangana occur in Part VI of the Act which deals with apportionment of assets and liabilities between the successor States. 80. 79. Section 47 and Section 66 of the Act quoted by the Advocate- General for the State of Telangana occur in Part VI of the Act which deals with apportionment of assets and liabilities between the successor States. 80. Section 47 states as under: “47. Application of Part: (1) The provisions of this Part shall apply in relation to the apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh immediately before the appointed day. (2) The successor States shall be entitled to receive benefits arising out of the decisions taken by the existing State of Andhra Pradesh and the successor States shall be liable to bear the financial liabilities arising out of the decisions taken by the existing State of Andhra Pradesh. (3) The apportionment of assets and liabilities shall be subject to such financial adjustment as may be necessary to secure just, reasonable and equitable apportionment of the assets and liabilities amongst the successor States. (4) Any dispute regarding the amount of financial assets and liabilities shall be settled through mutual agreement, failing which by order by the Central Government on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.” (Emphasis supplied) 81. Thus, Section 47 emphatically deals with apportionment of assets and liabilities of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States and Sub-Section (4) thereof entitles the Union of India to decide “any dispute” regarding such apportionment on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General if there is no mutual agreement between the successor States. 82. The A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh is registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and is under Section 9 of the said Act a body corporate. 83. So it has a distinct personality from that of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. So the assets and liabilities of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, prior to bifurcation, cannot be treated as assets and liabilities of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and so Section 47 cannot apply. 84. Section 66 of the Act states as under: “66. So the assets and liabilities of the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, prior to bifurcation, cannot be treated as assets and liabilities of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and so Section 47 cannot apply. 84. Section 66 of the Act states as under: “66. Power of Central Government to order allocation or adjustment in certain cases - Where, by virtue of any of the provisions of this Part, either of the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana becomes entitled to any property or obtains any benefits or becomes subject to any liability and the Central Government is of opinion, on a reference made within a period of three years from the appointed day by either of the States, that it is just and equitable that such property or those benefits should be transferred to, or shared with, the other successor State, or that a contribution towards that liability should be made by the other successor State, the said property or benefits shall be allocated in such manner between the two States, or the other State shall make to the State subject to the liability such contribution in respect thereof, as the Central Government may, after consultation with the two State Governments, by order, determine.” 85. Even this provision, in our considered opinion, is attracted only as regards apportionment of assets and liabilities of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States and will have no application to the apportionment of assets and liabilities of a IX Schedule Institution like A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh for the same reasons as Section 47 would not apply to it. 86. Therefore, we hold that the Union of India (3rd respondent) has not been conferred by the Act to have any jurisdiction in relation to issues of apportionment of assets and liabilities of IX Schedule Institutions like the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad between the petitioner and the 1st respondent except to the limited extent provided in Section 71 of the Act. 87. 87. In the absence of any specific statutory power, any clarification with regard to the interpretation of the term ‘Headquarters’ occurring in Section 53 of the Act in relation to IX Schedule Institutions given by the Union of India is therefore of no relevance and it is not binding on the petitioner or the State of Andhra Pradesh. 88. We further declare that no ‘adjudicatory power’ is conferred under the Act on the Union of India in relation to apportionment of assets and liabilities of a Schedule IX Institution like A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh between the successor entities like the petitioner and the 1st respondent either. This is because such ‘adjudicatory power’ has to be specifically conferred by a statute made by the Parliament on the Union of India in relation to Schedule IX institutions, and existence of such power cannot be inferred by any interpretation of the Act because such power is a substantive power and must clearly flow from the language of the statute. 89. So we hold on point (c) that the Union of India has not been conferred any jurisdiction by the Act in the apportionment of assets and liabilities of institutions and undertakings mentioned in Schedule IX to the Act except to the limited extent provided in Section 71 of the Act, and it cannot adjudicate disputes in that regard between the successor States or their entities like the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The interpretation of the term “Headquarters” in Sec. 53 of the Act is not binding on the petitioner or on the State of Andhra Pradesh or on this Court. Point (d): 90. We shall next consider the point (d) which is: “(d) If the Union of India has no power under the Act to adjudicate any dispute in relation to apportionment of assets and liabilities of institutions and undertakings mentioned in Schedule IX to the Act like the petitioner, who can decide the said disputes?” 91. Point (d): 90. We shall next consider the point (d) which is: “(d) If the Union of India has no power under the Act to adjudicate any dispute in relation to apportionment of assets and liabilities of institutions and undertakings mentioned in Schedule IX to the Act like the petitioner, who can decide the said disputes?” 91. In the instant case, proviso to Sec. 53 of the Act has created a right in the petitioner to seek apportionment of assets and liabilities of the IX Schedule Institutions like the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad which are admittedly Inter-State Institutions after 2.6.2014, but Parliament has not provided for a remedy or a forum for the enforcement of this right. 92. In such a situation the principle ibi jus ibi remedium would be attracted. i.e. A party having a grievance must have a remedy. 93. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 , explained: “40. Ubi jus, ibi remedium - There is no wrong without a remedy. The law wills that in every case where a man is wronged and en-damaged he must have a remedy.” In that case, the Court provided a remedy of monetary compensation for victims of torture/ custodial violence/death in police lock up by State officials. It held: “44.........Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.” 94. In Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 272 . In Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 272 . The Supreme Court held: “33.........As far as possible, courts must always aim to preserve and protect the rights of parties and extend help to enforce them rather than deny relief and thereby render the rights themselves otiose, “ubi jus ibi remedium” (where there is a right, there is a remedy) being a basic principle of jurisprudence. Such a course would be more conducive and better conform to a fair, reasonable and proper administration of justice.” 95. In Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi vs. State of Gujarat, (2007) 4 SCC 241 , it was declared: “10. A party having a grievance must have a remedy. Access to justice is a human right. When there exists such a right, a disputant must have a remedy in terms of the doctrine ubi jus ibi remedium.” 96. In our opinion, the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is certainly available to the petitioner because under the said provision the High Court, would have the power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue appropriate writ to any Government, within those territories for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose i.e. for enforcement of rights conferred by a statute like the A.P. Reorgansiation Act, 2014. 97. Therefore, for enforcement of the right to seek apportionment of assets and liabilities under Section 53 of the Act of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. established in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner is entitled to choose the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 98. In this regard, we may take note of Sub-Section (3) of Section 40 of the Act, and in particular, the words: “notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of this Section or in Section 33........the High Court at Hyderabad shall have and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall not have jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of......proceedings where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any order passed by the High Court at Hyderabad before the date referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 30.” (Emphasis supplied) 99. The date referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 is 01.01.2019, the date when a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh started functioning for the territorial areas in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh after the Act was passed on 02.06.2014. 100. In Letter dated 6.1.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association rep. by its President, Amaravathi, Guntur District vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 (2) ALD 151 (FB) a Full Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad held: “16. Article 226(2) provided that the power to issue directions, orders or writs under Article 226(1) may be exercised by any High Court having jurisdiction over the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel loses sight of the fact that Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 deals with cases which arise out of or pertain to cases which were instituted before the common High Court at Hyderabad at a point of time when it did have territorial jurisdiction over both the States and the strength of the cause of action which arose within its territories. As the cause of action for institution of such cases arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the common High Court at Hyderabad, the jurisdiction to deal with those cases stood crystallised at that point of time itself. Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 merely retains and saves such jurisdiction in the Hyderabad High Court to continue to deal with the limited matters arising out of such cases which were dealt with by the common High Court at Hyderabad at a point of time when it had jurisdiction to deal with them, notwithstanding the constitution of a separate High Court for the present State of Andhra Pradesh. There is therefore no conflict between Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 and Article 226(2) of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) 101. There is therefore no conflict between Section 40(3) of the Act of 2014 and Article 226(2) of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) 101. In the instant case also, the cause of action for institution of this Writ Petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the common High Court at Hyderabad when the Act was brought into effect with effect from 02.06.2014, and when Section 53 of the Act came into operation (conferring right on the petitioner to seek apportionment of assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Entities like the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad). 102. Therefore, the jurisdiction to deal with this case stood crystallized on 02.06.2014 itself and so this Writ Petition was rightly entertained by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in 2016 and can be decided by the High Court for the State of Telangana, which is its successor, since it has jurisdiction over the territories covered by the State of Telangana. Point (d) is answered accordingly. Point (e) 103. Now we shall consider the last point which is as under: “(e) Whether the Milk Products Factory at Hyderabad and the Guest House of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at Somajiguda, Hyderabad can be treated as ‘common facilities’ relatable to the Head Quarters and so liable to be apportioned between petitioner and 1st respondent in the population ratio under proviso (b) to Section 53(1) of the Act?” 104. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for the petitioner that the Milk Products Factory at Lalapet in Hyderabad was a Central Dairy with modern facilities for processing and packaging milk and milk products to cater to the needs of consumers duly processing milk received from all the Districts of undivided State of Andhra Pradesh; that the Guest House of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited was also a common facility intended and used for the benefit of Officers and Employees working in the territory which is now falling in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh; and that these two assets were always treated as ‘common facilities’ of the Head Quarters/Head Office/Registered Office where corporate functions were being carried out. According to the petitioner, these common facilities have been created over a period of time by investing resources from the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh to cater to the requirements of the entire State demands and so the meaning of the term ‘Head Quarters’ should encompass the assets and liabilities pertaining to the Head Office as well as its associated common centers/facilities established by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh for use by the entire combined State and they also have to be apportioned between the two successor States’ entities on the basis of population ratio. Reliance is also placed on sub-Section (3) of Section 47 of the Act which directs that ‘apportionment of assets and liabilities shall be subject to the such financial adjustment as may be necessary to secure just, reasonable and equitable apportionment of assets and liabilities among the successor States. 105. The learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana refuted the said contentions. According to him, the Milk Products Factory and the Buildings at Somajiguda (including the Guest House of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited) are exclusively located at Hyderabad in the new State of Telangana and their operations are confined to the local area. According to him, the operations of the Milk Products Factory, Hyderabad was purely to cater to the needs of the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and to the attached Dairy Units in the surrounding areas of Hyderabad. The Milk Products factory at Hyderabad is located separately at Lalapet with clear demarcation, due fencing, Security set up etc and it is not a part of the Head Quarters i.e. Administrative Office of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited at any point of time. The Milk Products factory is managed separately by a General Manager, like any other factory which cannot be distributed and the said Unit/asset does not come under the definition of Head Quarters. 106. In para-11 of the additional counter affidavit filed by 1st respondent, this is reiterated and it is stated that Milk Products Factory was also set up at Vijayawada falling in the territory of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh apart from Chittoor, Nandyal, Visakhapatnam, Ongole, Guntur and Nellore Districts. 107. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying averments contained in para-11 of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. 107. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying averments contained in para-11 of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. Regarding Milk Products factory at Lalapet, Hyderabad 108. Therefore in view of setting up of several Milk Product factories in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Milk Products factory at Lalapet, Hyderabad cannot be said to be a ‘common facility’ catering to the needs of the areas which now fall in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. It has to be taken as having its operations confined to the territory falling under the new State of Telangana only. We therefore reject the plea of the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh to treat the Milk Product factory at Lalapet, Hyderabad as part of Head Quarters. Regarding Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad 109. Coming to the Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, in our opinion, such a facility cannot be said to be intended, prior to 02- 06-2014, to be used only for the benefit of the Units of the said Federation in the Telangana area of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. It would certainly have been used by employees/Officers of the entire composite State of Andhra Pradesh if they had any work in the Head Office which was admittedly located in Hyderabad. It also cannot be said to be ‘operational unit’ (mentioned in clause (a) of proviso to Section 53 of the Act) which term would normally apply only to assets such as Milk Products factory and a Guest House will not fall in that category. Therefore the said ‘Guest House’ cannot be said to exclusively belong to the 1st respondent under clause (a) of proviso to Section 53 of the Act on location basis. Its apportionment has to be done by treating it as an asset of the ‘Head Quarters’ of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited under clause (b) of Section 53 of the Act. 110. In G. Rama Mohanrao and Another (supra), a Division Bench of the common High Court at Hyderabad was considering the question whether a Government Order G.O.Ms. 110. In G. Rama Mohanrao and Another (supra), a Division Bench of the common High Court at Hyderabad was considering the question whether a Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 112 dated 18.06.2016 issued by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh keeping in abeyance the enhancing the age of superannuation of employees of public sector undertaking under the administrative control of the said Government from 58 to 60 years, was illegal or arbitrary and whether such employees are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 60 years. At para-59, the Division Bench made the following observations regarding the word ‘Head Quarters’ used in Section 53(1) and in the proviso thereto: “The word heard quarters, used both in section 53(1) and its proviso, though not defined in the Act, can only mean the office that serves as the administrative centre of the undertaking.” The learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana placed strong reliance on this statement in support of his contention that except the administrative centre, no other facility can be treated as Head Quarters. We are of the opinion that no issue regarding apportionment of assets of IX Schedule Institutions under Section 53 of the Act arose in the said case of G. Rama Mohan Rao and Others (supra) and the issue in the said case related to bifurcation of employees of IX Schedule entities. The said observation was really not necessary to decide the issue which fell for consideration by the Division Bench. In fact in para-61, the Division Bench observed ‘the exercise of apportionment i.e. allotment of assets (except possibly in relation to the Head Quarters of some) of most of the Companies/Corporations/Societies belonging to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, between the Companies/Corporations/Societies of the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, is complete. This statement is factually incorrect as in this very case relating to erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, such apportionment has not occurred till date. Recently, this Court had dealt with the case of G. Ayyappa Shiva Kumar (supra) regarding the Telugu Academy, another IX Schedule Institution and also R. Sumathi vs. Telangana State Housing Board, Writ Petition Nos. 41913 of 2018, 13789 and 20469 of 2019 which had been decided on 20.02.2020 (DB) regarding the erstwhile A.P. Housing Board. Recently, this Court had dealt with the case of G. Ayyappa Shiva Kumar (supra) regarding the Telugu Academy, another IX Schedule Institution and also R. Sumathi vs. Telangana State Housing Board, Writ Petition Nos. 41913 of 2018, 13789 and 20469 of 2019 which had been decided on 20.02.2020 (DB) regarding the erstwhile A.P. Housing Board. We therefore are of the opinion that those observations in G. Rama Mohan Rao and Others (supra) are mere obiter dicta. We are also of the opinion that the word ‘Head Quarters’ would not only comprise the Administrative Center/Principal Office but also common facilities like Guest House of an inter state undertaking particularly when such facility was utilized for operations in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Undoubtedly, a Guest House would have been used by Officers/Employees coming from all over the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad and so it has to be treated as common facility of the Head Quarters falling under clause (b) of proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act. 111. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 53 of the Act, two modes of apportionment of assets and liabilities are mentioned i.e. transfer in physical form or by making payment or adjustment through any other mode, though the statute states there must be agreement between the States/successor entities. It cannot be contended that unless there is a mutual agreement, there cannot be apportionment of assets and liabilities between the petitioner and the 1st respondent at all. This Court is entitled to apply one or other modes of apportionment mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act even in the absence of any mutual agreement between petitioner and 1st respondent. 112. The Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited cannot be shared in physical form by the petitioner and the 1st respondent, which are the successor entities of both the States. Therefore its current cost on market value basis must be taken into account and be apportioned between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the population ratio i.e. 58.32:41.68. 113. How the market value is to be ascertained for such apportionment of assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Institutions? 114. Therefore its current cost on market value basis must be taken into account and be apportioned between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the population ratio i.e. 58.32:41.68. 113. How the market value is to be ascertained for such apportionment of assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Institutions? 114. Guidance to resolve the said problem is provided in Sub-Section (4) of Section 47 of the Act which directs that any dispute regarding the amount of financial assets and liabilities shall be settled through mutual agreement, failing which by order by the Central Government on the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. 115. Though Section 47(4) of the Act would not apply to Schedule IX Institutions as already held above, still issues of valuation of property being contentious, require an impartial and respected authority to resolve. 116. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India can be directed to help the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the matter of providing market valuation of the Guest House property at Somajiguda belonging to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation. 117. Either the petitioner or the 1st respondent can make a request to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to supply the market valuation of the said property. Within 8 weeks of such request being received from either party, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India shall cause such valuation to be made and supply it to both sides. 118. Within three (03) months of receipt of such communication from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the 58.32% share of the petitioner shall be transferred to the petitioner by the 1st respondent. Regarding the Administrative Office 119. The building housing the Administrative Office of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited is admitted by the 1st respondent to be a ‘Head Quarters’ falling under clause (b) of proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act. In the minutes of the first Joint (A.P. and T.S.) General Body Meeting of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited held on 18.12.2015, it was agreed that the said Building would be shared 58 : 42 ratio between the petitioner and 1st respondent. In the minutes of the first Joint (A.P. and T.S.) General Body Meeting of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited held on 18.12.2015, it was agreed that the said Building would be shared 58 : 42 ratio between the petitioner and 1st respondent. So the said arrangement shall immediately be made in relation to the said administrative office as well as assets and liabilities in relation thereto in supersession of the arrangement made in Proceedings No. 139/ADMN.V/2014 dated 20.05.2016 (as mentioned in para-11A of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent of allocating first and second floor to 1st respondent, third and fourth floor to the petitioner and ground floor to be used commonly). Regarding other immovable assets 120. The assets and liabilities of respective Milk Product factories and other operational Units shall be shared under clause (a) of proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act on location basis. Regarding amounts lying to the credit of Bank accounts of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Cooperative Development Federation Limited in respondent Nos. 4 to 9 Banks 121. Regarding amounts lying to the credit of bank accounts in respondent Nos. 4 to 9 Banks of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited as on 02-06-2014, the same shall be shared in the ratio 58.32:41.68 by the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Regarding liabilities of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited 122. The liabilities of the operational Units of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited shall be apportioned between petitioner and 1st respondent on ‘location basis’ as per clause (a) of proviso to Section 53 of the Act and the liabilities of the ‘Head Quarters’ shall be apportioned between the petitioner and 1st respondent on the basis of population ratio i.e. 58.32:41.68. 123. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are at liberty to take the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in the event of any disagreement in regard to valuation of assets and liabilities of Head quarters or operational units of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited and the latter shall give all possible assistance for resolving the same expeditiously if approached by the parties. 124. Accordingly: (a) The Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The action of the State of Telangana in issuing G.O.Ms. 124. Accordingly: (a) The Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The action of the State of Telangana in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 8 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Dy.II) Department dated 06.05.2016 is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and the said G.O.Ms. No. 8 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Dy.II) Department dated 06.05.2016 is set aside. (c) G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 16.07.2016 is declared to be only an interim arrangement made by the 1st respondent for administrative purposes and it is declared that it also does not bind the petitioner. (d) The Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India (3rd respondent) is declared to have no jurisdiction in (i) the apportionment of assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Institutions except to the limited extent provided in Section 71 of the Act or (ii) ‘adjudicating’ any dispute in that regard between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. (e) For enforcement of the right to seek apportionment of assets and liabilities under Section 53 of the Act of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. established in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner is entitled to choose the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India and this Court has the jurisdiction to decide it. (f) The Administrative Office of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited and the assets and liabilities in relation thereto shall be divided as per clause (b) of proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act in the ratio 58.32:41.68 in super-session of the arrangement made in Proceedings No. 139/ADMN.V/2014 dated 20.05.2016 (as mentioned in para-11A of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent of allocating first and second floor to 1st respondent, third and fourth floor to the petitioner and ground floor to be used commonly) within four (04) weeks. (g) As regards the Guest House at Somajiguda, Hyderabad of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, it’s current value on market value basis, as determined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, must be taken into account and be apportioned between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the population ratio i.e. 58.32:41.68. Both parties are given liberty to approach the said Authority to supply the market valuation of the said property. Both parties are given liberty to approach the said Authority to supply the market valuation of the said property. Within 8 weeks of such request being received from either party, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India shall cause such valuation to be made and supply it to both sides; and within three (03) months of receipt of such communication from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the 58.32% share of the petitioner shall be transferred to the petitioner by the 1st respondent. (h) In view of setting up of several Milk Product factories in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Milk Products factory at Lalapet, Hyderabad cannot be said to be a ‘common facility’ catering to the needs of the areas which now fall in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. It has to be taken as having its operations confined to the territory falling under the new State of Telangana only. We therefore reject the plea of the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh to treat the Milk Product factory at Lalapet, Hyderabad as part of Head Quarters. (i) The assets and liabilities of the operational Units of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited including the Milk Products factory at Hyderabad shall be apportioned as per clause (a) of proviso to Section 53(1) of the Act on ‘location basis’ within two (02) months; and the parties at liberty to take the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in the event of any disagreement in regard to such valuation and the latter shall give all possible assistance for resolving the same expeditiously if approached by the parties. (j) Regarding amounts lying to the credit of bank accounts of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited in respondent Nos. 4 to 9 Banks as on 02-06-2014, the same shall be shared in the ratio 58.32 : 41.68 by the petitioner and the 1st respondent within four (04) weeks. (k) Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. (the 1st respondent) shall not operate Bank Accounts in respondent nos. 4 to 9 Banks till such apportionment as mentioned clause (i) above takes place. (k) Telangana State Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. (the 1st respondent) shall not operate Bank Accounts in respondent nos. 4 to 9 Banks till such apportionment as mentioned clause (i) above takes place. (l) Assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India can be taken by either or both parties in respect of valuation of assets or liabilities of Head Quarters or operational units of the erstwhile A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, if required and the latter shall give all possible assistance for resolving the same expeditiously if approached by the parties. No costs. 125. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.