RDF release plea pending in SC, Punjab opens talks channel with Centre — with a climbdown

Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema Thursday reached Delhi where he will meet Union Food Minister Pralhad Joshi and discuss the issue. Sources said the government has now decided to seek an interim amount from the Centre had made it clear that it will only pay RDF at 2 per cent instead of 3 per cent, as is being levied by the state.

Punjab levies RDF on foodgrain it procures for central pool. However, for the past three years, the Centre has been withholding the amount saying it can only pay 2 per cent, RDF, a proposal that the state had earlier refused.

At the time in 2023 when state moved the Supreme Court alleging non-release of the RDF and withholding a portion of the market fee, Centre owed it Rs 4,200 crore. The pending RDF has now ballooned to Rs 6,767 crore. An additional amount of Rs 1300 crore has been added on account of procurement of paddy, taking the total amount to Rs 8,000 crore.

“We have decided to ask the Centre to pay some amount. They have already offered to pay us 2 per cent. By that measure, we deserve to get at least Rs 5,400 crore out of the total Rs 8,000 crore. Our Mandi Board is short of funds. It needs money for maintenance of the grain markets and the link roads. If the state gets some money, we can start some works,” said an official.

The official added that the state will continue its legal fight in the top court for its rightful 3 per cent RDF.

The Supreme Court had first listed the state’s plea for a hearing on September 2 and later on September 19. However, it was not heard. Advocate General Gurminder Singh had then said, “We have pleaded that the Centre is liable to pay us RDF. The suit determination may take time. The RDF is a committed liability and at least Rs 1,000 should be credited immediately”.

In its plea, Punjab has said that Centre is obligated to pay the fee which is constitutionally levied by the state. The mere fact that this fee is being paid in respect of acquisition, which the state is carrying out for the Centre, does not in any way change this underlying constitutional/ legal position.

It has contended that the Centre’s actions are also in violation of the Modified Fixation Principles that recognize the autonomy of the state to determine the fees to be levied and subsequently reimbursed with by the defendant (Union government of India).

The suit says that Punjab will suffer if Centre is allowed to discontinue the payment of the market fees and the statutory fee, at the rate determined by state. The reduction of the statutory charges at this stage would adversely affect the rural infrastructure and economy. Further, the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board/ Punjab Development Board will not be able to pay the loans/ liabilities created for development of rural infrastructure in respect of the outstanding payments accrued on account of the market fees and RDF.

“Thus, there exists a dispute, involving questions of law and fact, between the plaintiff state and the defendant Union of India, regarding the encroachment of jurisdiction and encroachment of legal rights as a state. Hence, this original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India is being preferred,” the suit said.

Earlier, the state had climbed down from its stand on seeking money under National Health Mission by agreeing to change facade of half of its Aam Aadmi Clinics as per the centre’s directions. It had also agreed to sign up for PM-Shri scheme for schools.