Funds allocated for Sindh’s development are looted: Justice Gulzar Ahmed

Judge directs Adovcate General to submit inquiry report on discrepancies in Sindh Coal Authority


News Desk April 28, 2018
PHOTO: FILE PHOTO

Justice Gulzar Ahmed expressed displeasure over the Sindh government not submitting an inquiry report on corruption in the Sindh Coal Authority to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Express News reported.

During the hearing related to corruption in the provincial coal authority on Saturday, Justice Ahmed admonished Additional Advocate General Sindh Sarwar Khan for not presenting the inquiry report to the top court.

"What is happening in Sindh? Why are you people so cruel? Do you not love your land? Looters are plundering the province," Justice Ahmed said in his remarks to Khan.

Sindh mining company awarded licence for conducting feasibility study in Thatta

Ahmed said that the rest of the country did not hold a good opinion about the governance in Sindh and that people sitting in Islamabad had heard a lot of bad stories about Sindh.

"Children are dying from thirst and hunger in Sindh. Where does all the money allocated for development in the area go? If the money was spent on the people of the province, the fortunes of Sindh would change overnight," Justice Ahmed observed.

The SC judge was of the opinion that the governments of other provinces spent at least a fraction of the amount allocated for development on public sector projects, but in Sindh, all the money is looted.

Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company refutes claims of breach at reservoir

"Should we refer this case to the National Accountability Bureau? What is the Sindh government doing for the people?" the judge asked the Advocate General.

Justice Gulzar directed provincial authorities to submit an inquiry report providing the complete money trail of projects undertaken by the Sindh Coal Authority, along with pictures and other evidence.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Most Read