Humayun Khan
PESHAWAR: As many as 19 Members Provincial Assembly (MPAs) including treasury benches lawmakers approached Peshawar High Court (PHC) against Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa seeking declaration of Umbrella Schemes/ Block allocation in fiscal year 2024-25 as unlawful, null and void as well as Chief Minister directives after budget in this regard.
The petitioners including MPA PK28, 30, 32, 40, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 82, 95, 101, 103, 106, 111, 112, and 115 especially treasury benches member and Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI) leader Arbab Muhammad Waseem Khan while Chief Minister (CM) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary CM, Additional Chief Secretary Planning& Development, Secretary Communications& Works, Secretary Irrigation, Secretary Finance and Secretary Planning& Development made as respondents in the plea.
The petition pleaded that on acceptance of this writ PHC may be pleased declare the schemes included in the Annual Development Program (ADP) under Umbrella schemes/Block allocation as enumerated and any other such schemes in the ADP 2024-25 are illegal, unlawful, null and void. As well as declare that all CM directives issued subsequent to the passage of the Budget for 2024-25 related to umbrella/block schemes are illegal and unlawful.
Moreover, set-aside the operation of all CM directives issued subsequent to the passage of the Budget for 2024-25 related to umbrella/block schemes. Direct the respondents to release the funds for developmental schemes as per the release policy and in a just and equitable manner. Direct the respondents to formulate, implement and distribute developmental schemes and release of funds to schemes as per law, rules, guidelines and dictates of the judgements of the superior courts. The petitioners and their constituents should not be discriminated against purely out of political considerations in this context, the petition stated.
The petitioners seeking interim relief to restrain the respondents from taking any steps to execute, distribute, point-out, finalize or earmark any scheme out of the schemes included in the ADP 2024-25 under Umbrella schemes/Block allocation as enumerated till the final decision of the instant writ petition. Restraining the respondents from disbursing or releasing any funds to any scheme out of the schemes included in the ADP 2024-25 under Umbrella schemes/Block allocation as enumerated.
The writ argued for suspending the operation of all CM directives issued subsequent to the passage of the Budget for 2024-25 related to umbrella/block schemes till the final decision of this writ petition. Suspending the operation of any already released funds and execution of schemes for any scheme out of the schemes included in the ADP 2024-25 under Umbrella schemes/Block allocation as enumerated. Restraining the respondents from release of funds in an arbitrary manner against the release policy till the final decision in this writ petition.
The writ argued that the petitioners have been duly elected as members of the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the general elections held on 8th February 2024. That the present petitioners belong to various political parties and constitute the opposition benches in the provincial assembly. That the petitioners thus representing the opposition parties have collectively obtained approximately 30 million votes in the general election of 2024.
This calculates to around 36 percent of the total votes cast in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. That therefore, the petitioners represent almost half of the electorate that cast its vote in the February 2024 general elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It is relevant to note here that the ruling government benches in the provincial assembly have obtained about 38 percent of the total votes cast in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. That amongst the petitioners’ numerous duties as enjoined on them vide the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the relevant statutes and rules, is a primary duty of safeguarding the interests and rights of the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the writ stated.
The Annual Budget session of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly was held recently in June 2024. Unprecedentedly and demonstrating the extreme callousness of the respondent government, the Annual Budget Statement was placed in the provincial assembly before presentation of the Federal Budget in the National Assembly. This exhibits the extreme nonseriousness of the respondents and of the treasury benches in the Provincial Assembly as they very well know that most of the revenue estimates of the province is obtained vide transfers from the Federal Government.
The ADP 2024-25 was also presented and passed by virtue of the sheer and brute majority of the ruling government in the province. This was done despite the fact that the same consists of entries of developmental schemes which very clearly violate the well settled law as laid down by various judgements of the Superior Courts including the Supreme Court of Pakistan and also of this Court and also the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules 1988, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business 1985 as well as the policy guidelines issued by the respondents in consequence of the judgment of this Honorable Court.
That the formulation of the ADP in such a manner is a clear and gross violation of the abovementioned law, rules and guidelines thus making this process utterly illegal. That despite the clear law, judgements of superior courts, guidelines against inclusion of and bar on including block/umbrella schemes in the ADP, the respondents have included the following entries in the ADP.
The aforesaid schemes being block/umbrella allocations are distinguishable from schemes that are presented and approved with the required details and particularity and thus illegal. The respondents are releasing funds to ongoing schemes in a manner that violates the funds release policy formulated and issued by the respondent government. Favoritism and discrimination on the basis of political affiliations is being made the sole criteria of which developmental scheme or which area gets how much funds.
The respondent no.2 under the name of “CM Directives” is doling out public funds to his blue-eyed political favorites. This despite the fact that such practice of arbitrary one-man discretionary power has been declared consistently as illegal by the superior courts including PHC. That the present petitioners made all out efforts to debate in the provincial assembly and utilize any other public or private forum to pin point and convince the respondents and the government benches of the illegality of the afore-mentioned schemes, releases, directives and actions but to no avail.
