Home Maxims & Terms Annual Budget Statement meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Annual Budget Statement

Annual Budget Statement legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 PLD 131 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Arts. 82(2) & (3)Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007, Rr. 183, 186 & 194Annual Budget Statement"Other expenditure"Demand for grants, procedure for

Article 82(2) of the Constitution stipulated that so much of the Annual Budget Statement as related to ''other expenditure" shall be submitted to the National Assembly in the form of demands for grants, and the Assembly shall have power to assent to, or to refuse to assent to, any demand, or to assent to any demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein

Article 82(3) of the Constitution specifically mandated that "no demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the Federal Government"

Rule 183 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly, 2007, provided as to how a demand for the grant was to be made, and stated that each demand for a grant should contain "details of estimate" and, furthermore, the demand should also show "the various items comprising the subject of the grant"

Item-wise estimate of the grant was required to be placed before the National Assembly for discussion in terms of R.186 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly, 2007

Discussion and voting on the demands for grants in the Budget cannot take place unless the details of each grant in terms of its item-wise estimate was included in the demand.

2014 PLD 131 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Arts. 80, 81, 82, 83 & 84Annual Budget StatementPrime Minister, discretion ofPerson-specific allocation of fundsConstitutionalityDiscretionary funds placed at disposal of Prime Minister by the National Assembly in the Annual Budget StatementConstitutionalitySuch discretionary funds would be ultra vires of the Constitution

Policy or practice adopted by Parliamentarians to place funds in the hands of the Prime Minister to be used/allocated by him at his discretion to Members of National/Provincial Assemblies or Notables, was repugnant to the Constitution

Language employed in Arts.80 to 84 of the Constitution implicitly excluded person-specific allocations of funds

No constitutional provision permitted inclusion of any scheme or expenditure at the behest of any Member of National/Provincial Assembly or Notable or any other person during the currency of a financial year, unless it was necessitated by a totally unforeseen contingency arising out of extraordinary circumstances which needed to be met on an urgent basis

However, it would be a different matter if prior to the preparation of the Annual Budget Statement a Member of National/Provincial Assembly, Non-Government Organization and/or any other person from a constituency was called upon to identify schemes or expenditure that might be required for effecting necessary development in their area of concern

Such an exercise, however, would have to be across the board, irrespective of the political party or parties that might be in power, and it should be carried out much before the preparation of the Annual Budget Statement so that if the relevant scheme or expenditure was to be included in the Annual Budget Statement, it would have passed through the process of due consideration by the Planning Commission for purposes of ascertaining its necessity and efficacy and conducting its appraisal, technical analysis, feasibility and economic cost before it was included as a demand for grant in the Annual Budget Statement.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Annual Budget Statement", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944544

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Annual Budget Statement"

MLD 2015
2014-August-28

2015 M L D 117

Engineer ZAMRAK KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and another — Respondents

Court: Balochistan
PLD 2014
2013-December-5

P L D 2014 Supreme Court 131

Constitutional Petition No.20 of 2013, Human Rights Case No.11504-G of 2013 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 2960, 3566, 3579, 3649, 3865, 4022, 4135, 4208 and 4498 of 2013

Court: High Court
PLD 2018
2017-October-3

P L D 2018 Peshawar 83

ZIAULLAH AFRIDI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary and 4 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PTD 2023
N/A

2023 P T D 1

Messrs WORLDCALL TELECOM LTD. through Chief Financial Officer Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 6 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 2018
2018-May-17

P L D 2018 Peshawar 192

QUARBAN ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2004
2003-September-22

P L D 2004 Lahore 38

SHAH MUQEEM PRESS CLUB — Petitioner Versus CHIEF MINISTER and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1990
Writ Petition No. .3972 of 1990, decided on 17th June, 1.990.

L D 1990 Lahore 401

WASI ZAFAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SPEAKER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY ‑‑‑ Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Proceedings in Constitutional petition ‑‑‑ Adjournment ‑‑‑ Advocate General remained present on the last date of hearing ‑‑‑ Advocate‑General seeking adjournment through a private legal practitioner instead of deputing any one out of the Additional Advocates‑General and the team of the Assistant Advocates‑General, the Law officers appointed by the Provincial Government‑‑‑ Request for adjournment was opposed by the petitioner saying that adjournment was being sought to frustrate the petition as well as the prayer for interim relief and, if the request for adjournment was allowed petition would be rendered infructuous ‑‑‑ High Court, in view of such unprecedented conduct of Advocate General, and other Law Officers and the fact that no justification was made out for adjourning the petition, decided to proceed with the same and not to adjourn it and allowed the petitioner to continue with his arguments.‑‑Advocate General ‑‑‑ Adjournment.
CLC 2018
2017-May-17

2018 C L C 134

WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary and 5 others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PLC(CS)N 2018
Writ Petition No.1984 of 2015, decided on 2nd July, 2018.

2018 P L C (C

Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and 2 others Versus SECRETARY AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others

Court: High Court (AJ&K)
PTD 2014
Civil Appeals Nos. 1540 - 1599 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No.21 of 2014, decided on 22nd August, 2014.

2014 P T D 2016

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Petroleum and Natural Resources and another Versus DURRANI CERAMICS and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan