Sindh PAC Questions Billions Collected for Karachi Road Repairs

The Sindh Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee has sought town-wise records of billions of rupees collected for road restoration in Karachi, after questioning why many roads dug up by utility companies remain damaged despite advance payments intended to finance repairs.

The committee, chaired by Nisar Ahmed Khuhro, reviewed the issue during a meeting examining audit objections related to Jinnah Town.

Officials were asked to provide details showing how much each Karachi town received through road-cutting charges and how those funds were subsequently used.

The issue has attracted particular attention because Sui Southern Gas Company alone reportedly paid Rs11.9 billion in advance to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, town municipal corporations and cantonment boards for permission to dig roads while installing underground infrastructure.

However, the PAC has not announced a finding that those funds were embezzled or illegally diverted.

Its current action is an accountability exercise seeking receipts, expenditure records and details of completed restoration schemes.

What Are Road-Cutting Charges?

Road-cutting charges are fees paid by utility companies when they need to excavate a public road.

Utilities may need to dig roads to install or repair:

• Gas pipelines
• Water lines
• Sewerage networks
• Electricity cables
• Telecommunications infrastructure

The relevant municipal authority typically issues permission for the excavation.

The utility company then pays a restoration fee intended to cover the cost of repairing or resurfacing the affected road once underground work is complete.

This arrangement is supposed to prevent the repair burden from falling entirely on the municipal budget.

In Karachi, however, the system has repeatedly come under scrutiny because roads can remain broken long after the utility work has ended.

SSGC Alone Paid Rs11.9 Billion

The most striking figure discussed at the PAC meeting involved Sui Southern Gas Company.

According to the material presented to the committee, SSGC paid approximately Rs11.9 billion in advance to different Karachi civic bodies for road cutting and restoration connected with its underground gas infrastructure work.

The recipients included:

• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation
• Town Municipal Corporations
• Cantonment boards

The payments were made so that roads could be restored after excavation.

Yet officials told the committee that many affected roads remained in poor condition.

That gap between money collected and visible restoration work is what the PAC is now examining.

This Is Not the First Time the Rs11.9 Billion Figure Has Surfaced

The issue predates the October 2026 PAC meeting.

Earlier reporting based on SSGC documentation said the company had already paid substantial road-restoration charges to Karachi civic bodies.

Among the reported payments were approximately:

• Rs3.55 billion to New Karachi/North Nazimabad areas
• Rs2.1 billion to Model Colony
• Rs1 billion to Lyari
• Rs490 million to KMC

Earlier reports said the payments were made after formal approvals and permissions for gas-network work.

The latest PAC scrutiny therefore represents a continuation of an accountability issue that has been building for more than a year.

Sindh Assembly Had Already Raised the Road-Cutting Problem

Official Sindh Assembly records show that lawmakers had previously raised concerns about damaged roads caused by SSGC excavation.

In December 2025, the Assembly’s agenda included a resolution expressing concern over dangerous potholes and damaged internal roads in Karachi following road cutting by SSGC.

A separate call-attention notice later referred to roads in North Nazimabad that allegedly remained unrepaired despite advance payments made to the relevant town administration.

This shows that the present PAC inquiry is not based on a newly discovered problem.

Questions over restoration after utility excavation have been part of Karachi’s civic debate for some time.

Jinnah Town Says It Received Rs800 Million

During the PAC meeting, particular attention was given to Jinnah Town.

Its municipal commissioner reportedly told the committee that the town had received approximately Rs800 million under road-cutting and related charges.

Officials also said tender notices worth about Rs300 million had been issued for roads and other development schemes.

PAC Chairman Nisar Khuhro then asked the administration to submit a complete list of the projects associated with those tenders.

The issue was not simply whether tenders had been advertised.

The committee wanted to know:

which projects were undertaken, where they were located and how much money was actually spent.

Officials Could Not Immediately Provide Complete Records

One of the main concerns emerging from the meeting was incomplete documentation available to the committee.

Representatives of the Local Government Department and town administrations were reportedly unable to provide a complete town-wise breakdown of:

• Road-cutting receipts
• Utility payments
• Restoration expenditure
• Completed schemes

The PAC therefore directed authorities to submit the missing records.

This does not establish wrongdoing.

But incomplete records make it more difficult for auditors and elected oversight bodies to verify whether public money was used for its intended purpose.

PAC Orders a Monitoring Mechanism

The committee also directed the Sindh Local Government Department to develop a more effective system for monitoring development work carried out by Karachi’s towns.

According to reporting from the meeting, the PAC wants stronger oversight of both project execution and spending.

That could potentially include clearer tracking of:

• Money collected from utilities
• Road locations affected
• Tendered projects
• Contractors
• Completion status
• Actual expenditure

A transparent tracking system would make it easier to identify whether a road that was paid for has actually been repaired.

What Happened With the Manhole Covers?

The PAC also examined a separate expenditure involving manhole covers in Jinnah Town.

Officials said around Rs1.9 million had been spent on the purchase.

The reported price was around Rs5,000 per cover.

The committee asked how many covers had been purchased and where they had been installed.

Town officials said the covers were installed in:

• UC-5
• UC-7
• UC-8

The PAC sought supporting purchase and installation records.

Why Did PAC Question the Manhole Spending?

Khuhro reportedly asked why open manholes continued to pose risks despite expenditure on covers.

The concern was therefore not necessarily that Rs5,000 was inherently an improper unit price.

The question was whether the quantity purchased, installation locations and actual condition on the ground matched the expenditure records.

This distinction matters.

An audit query does not automatically mean a purchase was fraudulent.

The purpose is to verify whether:

• The item was purchased.
• The price was supported.
• The quantity matched records.
• The item was actually installed.
• The expenditure served its stated public purpose.

Karachi Is Already Spending Billions on Road Rehabilitation

The road-cutting controversy comes while Karachi’s civic and provincial authorities are separately spending large amounts on road rehabilitation.

In July 2026, KMC announced a Rs14 billion programme to rehabilitate 139 roads across the city.

The programme was described as covering reconstruction, drainage improvements, water-supply work and street lighting.

Earlier in January, the Sindh government also approved Rs21.53 billion for Karachi infrastructure, including significant allocations for road rehabilitation and related municipal work.

This creates a broader accountability question:

If dedicated road-cutting charges are being collected from utilities, restoration funded from those charges should ideally be clearly distinguished from roads repaired through general development budgets.

Otherwise, it becomes difficult for the public to determine which funding source paid for which project.

KMC Has Also Started Emergency Pothole Repairs

On October 1, Karachi Mayor Murtaza Wahab directed KMC’s Swift Response Team to accelerate emergency work filling potholes and repairing excavated portions of roads.

The mayor said damaged road sections were causing traffic disruption and inconvenience and directed teams to identify and repair affected areas.

That initiative demonstrates that road repairs are taking place in parts of Karachi.

It does not, however, resolve the PAC’s separate question about how earlier road-cutting revenue was accounted for.

The two issues should not be conflated.

Karachi’s FY27 Budget Also Includes Road Spending

KMC’s 2026-27 budget allocates significant resources to municipal infrastructure.

The approved budget totals around Rs60.45 billion, with billions allocated across engineering, development and other municipal services.

The broader city budget therefore contains multiple sources of infrastructure funding.

That makes proper accounting particularly important.

Road repairs can potentially be funded through:

• Road-cutting charges
• KMC development allocations
• Provincial grants
• District ADP funds
• Town budgets
• Special rehabilitation programmes

Without clear project-level records, there is a risk of confusion over which authority is responsible for a particular road.

Why Roads Often Remain Damaged After Utility Work

Karachi’s road-restoration problem is partly institutional.

Several agencies can operate under or alongside the same road.

For example, a single street may be affected by:

• SSGC gas work
• Water corporation excavation
• K-Electric cabling
• Telecommunications infrastructure
• Sewerage maintenance
• Town-level municipal projects

One organisation may dig the road while another authority owns it.

A separate agency may then be responsible for resurfacing.

This creates coordination problems even when restoration money is available.

Advance Payments Are Supposed to Prevent That Problem

The purpose of requiring utilities to pay before excavation is precisely to avoid long delays.

If a utility has already paid the relevant restoration charge, the civic body should theoretically have funds available to restore the road after work is complete.

The PAC’s central question is therefore straightforward:

If billions have already been collected, why do so many excavated roads remain damaged?

The answer may vary from town to town.

That is why the committee has requested individual records rather than making a citywide conclusion before reviewing the evidence.

Rs11.9 Billion Should Not Be Described as Money “Missing”

The source story raises serious accountability questions, but the wording needs care.

At present, there is no PAC finding that the full Rs11.9 billion is missing.

The figure represents payments reportedly made by SSGC to multiple civic bodies.

Some of the money may already have been spent on road works, some may relate to work in progress, and some expenditures may require further documentation.

The PAC is asking authorities to demonstrate what happened to the funds.

For Info-Matix, the accurate formulation is:

“PAC seeks details of how billions in road-cutting charges were spent.”

It would be premature to say:

“Rs11.9 billion disappeared.”

PAC Has an Oversight Role, Not a Criminal Conviction Role

Public Accounts Committees review government expenditure and audit observations.

Sindh Assembly records identify Nisar Ahmed Khuhro as chairman of the provincial PAC.

The committee can call officials, request documentation and examine whether government spending complied with rules.

If serious irregularities emerge, further administrative or legal action can follow through the appropriate institutions.

But questions raised during a PAC hearing should not automatically be treated as proven criminal misconduct.

What Records Could Resolve the Issue?

The dispute could be clarified through relatively straightforward documentation.

For each road excavation, authorities should theoretically be able to show:

Utility company: which organisation dug the road.

Location: the exact street or road section.

Amount paid: restoration charge collected.

Receiving authority: KMC, TMC or cantonment board.

Tender: contractor selected for restoration.

Work order: scope and cost.

Completion evidence: whether resurfacing was completed.

Payment: amount actually paid to the contractor.

If those records can be matched on a project-by-project basis, auditors can determine whether the system worked.

Why This Matters Beyond Accounting

Damaged roads impose real costs on residents and businesses.

Poorly restored road cuts can contribute to:

• Traffic congestion
• Vehicle damage
• Motorcycle accidents
• Water accumulation
• Dust
• Longer travel times
• Reduced emergency access

For commercial areas, poor roads can also make deliveries and customer access more difficult.

The question of road-cutting fees is therefore not simply an accounting dispute.

It concerns whether money collected specifically for infrastructure restoration is producing the intended public service.

Karachi’s Fragmented Governance Makes Accountability Harder

Karachi has multiple civic jurisdictions.

Roads may fall under:

• KMC
• Town Municipal Corporations
• Cantonment boards
• Provincial departments
• Other agencies

This fragmentation can make responsibility unclear to residents.

A citizen may see an unrepaired trench but have no easy way to know which agency owns the road or which utility paid restoration charges.

The PAC’s demand for town-wise information could help clarify that responsibility.

Public Disclosure Could Improve the System

One practical improvement would be an online road-restoration register.

Such a system could show:

Road name

Utility responsible for excavation

Amount received

Date of digging

Restoration deadline

Contractor

Completion status

This type of disclosure could make it easier for residents, auditors and councillors to verify whether payments translate into repairs.

The PAC has not publicly announced such a portal, but its demand for a formal monitoring mechanism points toward the need for more systematic tracking.

What Happens Next?

The immediate next step is for Karachi’s towns and the Local Government Department to submit the requested financial and project records.

The PAC will be looking for clarity on:

• How much each town received
• Which utilities made the payments
• Which roads were involved
• How much was spent
• Which schemes were tendered
• Which roads have been restored
• Why some remain damaged
• Details of Jinnah Town’s Rs300 million tenders
• Purchase and installation records for manhole covers

Only after those records are reviewed will the committee be in a stronger position to determine whether there were accounting irregularities, delays, weak monitoring or other problems.

Bottom Line

The Sindh Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee has demanded detailed records of billions of rupees collected by Karachi’s municipal authorities as road-cutting and restoration charges.

SSGC alone reportedly paid around Rs11.9 billion to KMC, town municipal corporations and cantonment boards for underground infrastructure work, while many affected roads have remained damaged.

In Jinnah Town, officials told the committee that around Rs800 million had been received, while tenders worth Rs300 million had been issued for roads and other development works. The PAC has requested a complete list of those schemes.

The committee also sought details of roughly Rs1.9 million spent on manhole covers and directed the Local Government Department to create a stronger mechanism for monitoring town development projects.

The key point is that the PAC has raised questions and demanded documentation; it has not yet concluded that billions were stolen or misappropriated.

The next phase will depend on whether Karachi’s civic bodies can produce project-level records showing where the money went and which roads were actually restored.