The controversy between the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee of the Federal Parliament regarding the initial share issue (IPO) permit is getting heated. On December 12, 2080, the Public Accounts Committee directed the Securities Board not to allow IPOs to companies with net worth per share of less than 90%.

In the letter written by the Finance Committee to the Board on May 19, it was asked not to withhold the permission on the basis that the minimum net worth for IPOs is not mentioned in the existing law. Then on Friday (June 5), the Public Accounts Committee wrote to the board and asked them to send details within three days about the implementation status of the directive dated 12 January 2080. In this way, the dispute escalated when both the committees were seen in their own positions. 

The board, which stopped the IPO permission for about one and a half years, has started giving permission to some companies in the last few months. According to this, since December 2081, 12 companies have received IPO permission. All those companies have a net worth of more than 90%. Based on the instructions given by the Public Accounts Committee about a year and a half ago, the board has been saying that companies with less than 90 net worth are not allowed.

However, most of the companies currently applying for IPO permission have a net worth of more than 90%. But the board is reluctant to allow companies with more than 90 net worth on various pretexts.

Meanwhile, the Board of Directors meeting held this week has decided to take a legal opinion on what should be done after the directive of the Finance Committee not to withhold permission based on net worth only while the instructions of the Public Accounts Committee that companies with less than 90 net worth should not be allowed to issue IPOs are still in place. But the board is in confusion as to whose decision to accept after the letter coming from the Public Accounts Committee, which stands firm on its decision. 

The Public Accounts Committee, in a letter written to the board on Friday, asked for information on the status of implementation of its directives. This committee sent a letter on December 13 to implement the decision made by the 19th meeting of January 12, 2080 on the presented matter. On 18th January 2081, the information given by the board regarding the status of implementation at that time has been received,' the letter of the committee says, 'Since the committee needs information about the status of implementation of the decision in the period after that, it is requested according to the instructions to provide information about the status of implementation of the decision to the secretariat within 3 days.' He argues that if the conditions mentioned in the current law are fulfilled, the net worth is less than 90.

Public companies seeking permission from the Board for IPO issuance should not be stopped based on conditions not mentioned in the law, including net worth, in the case that the conditions mentioned in the current law are met, said the directive of the Finance Committee. 

In the past, the Public Accounts Committee had given permission to the board by changing the scope of work, meaning that they have corrected it, said Santosh Chalise, chairman of the committee. It is not the Public Accounts Committee's jurisdiction but the Finance Committee's, the Accounts Committee will issue instructions on whether there are irregularities This company cannot be given IPO permission,'' he said. They started to say that it was ruined because they had fixed the net worth, then I opened the way. It is said that the decision of the finance committee is valid. 

Chairman of Public Accounts Committee Hrishikesh Pokharel claims that he is committed that his decision is in the interest of citizens. "We do not know who has decided what, in the parliamentary system, the decision made by one committee is adopted by another committee. That is democracy as we understand it. Parliament is the body to respond to any crisis," he said. The directive was issued only after much study. Acting on the basis of what is fair to citizens.'