in effect extended the period of the old award. Morally, the Centre's action is altogether indefensible. Though the Finance Commission had left no doubt that its final award would cover the first year as well, the Centre did not make its position clear when it accepted the Commission's interim award. Had the Centre let it be known then that it would not be possible to revise the interim award once the budgets and the annual plans for 1984-85 had been finalised, the Finance Commission itself could possibly have made a somewhat different award, different at least in the year-to-year distribution of resource transfers. Take the question of grants-in-aid to deficit states: the highest amount of such grants is recommended for 1984-85. Thereafter, they decline by about Rs 100) crore every year. The deficit states now stand to lose about Rs 200 crore because the Commission s final award has been set aside for the first year and these states will get a reduced amount next year because the figure for the year is smaller by Rs 100 crore. The least the Centre could have done is to have disclosed it' intentions to the Finance Commission so that it could have formulated its final award knowing fully well that it would apply only to four years and not the full-five year period. Really and truly, the Centre has once again demonstrated what little regard it has for propriety moral or legal International Capital Flows More to Those that Have THE importance of the Deficit Reduction Bill passed by the US Congress lies less in the attempted reduction in the US Budget deficit from $ 185 billion to $ 148 billion
