Stay on development funds retained

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday retained the stay on the developmental funds of two constituencies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including PK-23 Mardan and PK-37 Kohat.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Qaiser Rashid Khan and Justice Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan extended the stay order till January 15 in a writ petition filed by two opposition lawmakers against the ‘uneven distributions’ of funds.

The high court stayed development funds in writ petitions filed by MPA from PK-23 Ahmad Bahadur and Member Provincial Assembly Amjad Afridi from PK-37 Kohat. The bench issued re-issued notice to provincial government to submit reply in the writ petitions before next hearing.

In the first writ petition, filed by MPA Amjad Afridi through his lawyer Barrister Mudassir Ameer, it was stated that despite the high court’s orders an uneven distribution of funds continued in the constituencies belonging to opposition lawmakers in the KP Assembly.

The lawmaker claimed that the constituency PK-37 belonged to the petitioner and was provided only Rs60 million while other constituencies were given Rs200 million each. The MPA alleged in the petition that funds were provided only to the favorites of the chief minister. It was pointed out that the high court in its order had directed that all the KP constituencies should be provided equal developmental funds.

The second petition was filed by MPA Ahmad Bahadur from PK- 23 elected on the Awami National Party ticket. His lawyer was Ubaid Razzaq.

During the course of arguments, the petitioner lawyer submitted that his client was being ignored in provision of funds, while another PTI candidate, who was a runner-up in the 2013 general election, was given all funds.

Besides, he submitted that developmental funds allocated for PK-23 were much less than other constituencies. “Funds have not been provided to elected member of KP assembly but to another person who was a runner-up in the election,” the court was told.

The lawyer submitted that District Development Advisory Committee chairman was supposed to get opinion from the MPA and consider his schemes in the Annual Development Plan. He said it was the right of an elected member of the assembly to oversee the utilisation of funds.

The lawmakers told the court that the government had committed contempt of court as PHC had earlier directed that funds should be provided to all the constituencies on equal basis. The court fixed January 15 for the next hearing.