PESHAWAR: The opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz on Friday moved the Peshawar High Court against the authorisation of expenditure by the provincial government for a month.

It requested the court to declare the government’s move illegal and unconstitutional.

In a joint petition, two PML-N MPAs, including Leader of the Opposition in the provincial assembly Ibadullah Khan and Sobia Shahid, said the April 5 decision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cabinet regarding the authorisation of essential expenditure of the provincial government for the month of April of the financial year 2023-24.

They also prayed the court to direct the provincial government to immediately call the provincial assembly session and pass the essential expenditures for an appropriate period until the presentation of the regular budget in the house.

They insist cabinet okayed expenses for one month without following procedure

The petition filed through lawyer Aminur Rehman Yousafzai included as respondents the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government through its chief secretary, provincial finance secretary, speaker, and secretary of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly.

The petitioners said that the provincial assembly was dissolved on Jan 19, 2023, by the KP governor on the advice of the then chief minister and a caretaker government was later installed in the province.

They said that piecemeal authorisation of expenditure for four months was approved under Article 126 of the Constitution by the caretaker cabinet for July-Oct 2023 and Nov 2023-Feb 2024, respectively, in July and Nov 2023.

The opposition lawmakers said that the general elections were held on Feb 8, 2024, and the first meeting of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial assembly was held on Feb 28 for the oath- taking of the newly elected members.

They added that the previous period of the authorisation of expenditure expired on Feb 29 and therefore, the provincial assembly approved the authorisation of expenditure for a further period of one month (March 2024) under Article 125 of the Constitution on March 4.

The petitioners said that the period of authorisation also expired on March 31.

They said that after the lapse of a one-month period of authorised expenditure, the provincial government, in order to approve authorisation of expenditure for a further period, opted for the analogy of Article 126, through which a caretaker provincial government was authorised to sanction expenditure.

The petitioners contended that without following the prescribed constitutional procedure, the cabinet authorised the essential expenditure for the month of April in its meeting held on April 5.

They contended that the provincial cabinet had deliberately misinterpreted Article 126 of the Constitution for ulterior motives in order to frustrate judgement of the high court on March 27, wherein it directed the speaker of the assembly to administer oaths to the opposition members elected to seats reserved for women and non-Muslims in the assembly.

The petitioners said that the provincial government had no lawful authority to deprive the provincial assembly of its mandate in the budget matters conferred under Article 125 of the Constitution.

They said that the provincial assembly had been there since Feb 28, 2024, whereas Article 126 of the Constitution, which was exclusively related to a caretaker government when the assembly had been dissolved, had been invoked by the government, which was illegal and unconstitutional.

Published in Dawn, April 20th, 2024