ISLAMABAD            -           The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s Registrar Office on Tuesday refused to entertain constitution petition against allocation of disproportionate funds to constituencies of Chief Minister Punjab Parvez Elahi & his family members in violation of procurement laws. The SC’s Registrar Office returned the petition by raising several objections over it. In this regard, Mian Dawood advocate approached the apex court seeking an order restraining Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Parvez Elahi from allocating public development funds for the constituencies belonging to his family members. The petitioner said that it was an admitted fact that the Punjab chief minister granted his home district the status of division and then allocated over Rs100 billion for development schemes, apparently for two districts Gujrat and Mandi Bahauddin. He alleged that the chief minister had released funds to the constituencies of Chaudhry Hussain (NA-68, Gujrat-I), Moonis Elahi (NA-69, Gujrat-II), Sajid Ahmed Bhatti (PP-67, Mandi Bahauddin-III) and his own constituency of PP-430, Gujrat-III. The petition requested the court to declare as unconstitutional the allocation of disproportionate funds to the constituencies of the chief minister and his family members, besides ruling that the allocation or re-appropriation through supplementary or excess grants of funds in the constituencies and the projects have been initiated in violation of the principle of transparency, good governance and procurement laws. The petitioner also requested the apex court to direct the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) or any other agency to launch an investigation against those responsible for violation of constitutional provisions and principles of transparency and procurement laws. The petition said that it had been reported that Punjab’s total development budget for the fiscal year 2022-23 stood at around Rs700 billion of which a significant portion went to Gujrat division. The petitioner cited the Punjab chief secretary, secretaries of finance and planning and development departments, the Planning and Development Board chairman, Accountant General Office and NAB as respondents. The petition recalled that the apex court had in 2014 held that the prime minister had no discretionary power vis-à-vis supplementary or excess grant and the same was analogically applicable to the chief ministers as well. Being the guardian of the fundamental law, the petition argued, the Supreme Court was obligated to ensure that the public functionaries adhere to the constitutional dictates and principles of public trust, transparency and good governance while dealing with the public exchequer and funds.