RAWALPINDI, Dec 4: The debate on the revised district budget remained incomplete on Tuesday, since members continued to discuss non-allocation of funds for members elected on reserved seats and unequal distribution of development funds among the Union Councils.

The Council will resume debate on different aspects of the budget, when they meet on Wednesday at 10.00am. Almost 20 members will participate in the debate.

The debate was disrupted several times, when members reacted to remarks made by their colleagues, who then protested, joined by other members, resulting in rumpus in the Council.

Majority of the members rejected the budget demanding amendments to rectify the “injustices” being caused to them.

Col (Rtd) Abbass termed the budgetary allocations as peanuts and observed that the provincial government should refrain from dictating terms to the district government.

He said development funds should be equally distributed among the 170 Union Councils of the district to give meaning to the dream of devolution of power to the grassroots.

Quoting officials, he said, they told him that there were more chances of corruption at the UC level, if development funds are left at the disposal of UCs.

He maintained that chances were much higher for corruption at Tehsil and district administration level.

Col Abbass demanded that the ongoing schemes started on the basis of favouritism should be cancelled. If the schemes are genuinely reviewed 54 per cent of the amount spent on completion of these projects would drop to 34 per cent and the remaining 20 per cent may be utilized to launch new schemes.

He criticised the budget for spending almost Rs16 million on projects run by departments that have not been devolved to the district government. He believed that there was no provision under which the district administration could be asked to pay for the schemes of the provincial government.

He demanded reduction in the expenditure allocated for utilities and suggested the saved amount should be diverted towards development projects.

Raja Zulqarnain Bhatti demanded equal distribution of funds among the UCs and protested against accusations of the UC being corrupt and inefficient. He asked the administration to remove all “false hurdles”. He asked the Council to reject the budget.

Ms Sarkar Abbass said the budget should have been scrutinised by a house committee comprising experts to identify and remove the shortfalls in the budget.

She lambasted the administration for not making separate allocation for members elected on reserved seats. She said being elected on women’s seat she represent 52 per cent of the population and therefore cannot be overlooked in the budget.

She said separate allocations are required for those elected on reserved seats to help ameliorate the sufferings of the marginalised sections.

Mr Javed Mirza complained against distribution of Rs85 million of Khushal Pakistan Programme (KPP) funds among the Tehsils resulting in grave injustice. He said, under the given distribution formula each UC in Rawalpindi will be given Rs1,77,000, Taxila UCs will be given Rs1.5 million each, Gujar Khan UC will receive Rs4,29,000 each, Kahuta UCs Rs6,15,000 each and Kotli Sattian UCs Rs0.9 million.

Jehangir Akbar Bhatti termed the budgetary allocations as a conspiracy to create rift among the Council members.

He threatened to take the issue of non-allocation of funds to members on reserved seats to the court.

Major Aftab Satti urged the members not to get involved in technicalities as this may hinder passage of budget. He opposed equal distribution of funds among the UCs as this would adversely affect underdeveloped areas.

Azhar Iqbal Satti asked the administration to cut non- development expenses and accord priority to development projects. He threatened to boycott the budget if members elected on reserved seats were not given separate allocation.

Raja Hamid Saleem said Rs1.7 million have been allocated in salaries for the staff of secretariats of Nazim and Naib Nazim, while the employees working at these places are suppose to draw their salaries from their parent department till June 2002. He asked clarification for this allocation.

Mr Saleem opposed separate allocations for members of special seats saying the amount allocated for the UCs would also be spent on the welfare projects of women, farmers, labourers and minorities, represented in the Council through reserved seats.

Other members also took part in the debate.