State authorities are legally obligated to execute court-mandated infrastructure projects; persistent failure and non-compliance with judicial timelines may render officials liable for contempt of court.

O R D E R

1. Order dated 04.01.2024 is extracted as under:

“1. While disposing of W.P.(C) 14052/2006, which was filed by the Petitioner herein regarding construction of chambers for members of the Sales Tax Bar Association, this Court on 12.01.2011 gave a road map for construction of a building to house lawyers chambers and offices of the State The said road map reads as under:.

“1) Work shall be awarded to the Construction Agency after completion of CODAL FORMALITIES as per the provisions of CPWD Manual, GFRs and other relevant rules, instructions, guidelines etc.

2) Govt. of NCT of Delhi approves the estimates at DSR 2007 and Cost Index items @ 9%, DC/PMC including consultancies @ 5% (when project is assigned to any Agency other than PWD/I&FC) and contingencies and labour cess @ 1% each for Civil/Electric Works and an undertaking from the Agency that it is willing to work on these parameters of cost estimation.

3) Works shall be completed within the given time-frame and within the sanctioned cost and as per CPWD Manual.

4) The Administrative Deptt. and/or Construction Agency must not change the scope of work on their own. It shall be brought before the EFC for approval if there is any such change perceived subsequently.

5) Admn. Deptt./Construction Agency may identify the probable impediments in the execution of the projects well in advance and may project contingent measures/plan as identified to deal with them, so as to ensure the timely completion of the projects.

6) Work completion certificate and copy of the 3 rd party Quality Control Certificate may be furnished to Admn. Deptt. & FD on completion of the work.

7) The Construction Agency will submit the final bill to Admn. Deptt. showing utilization of funds, completion of project and settlement of advance/deposit money on the completion of the Work/Project.”

2. Twelve years have passed and nothing has happened. The Petitioner has, thereafter, filed the instant Writ Petition.

3. This Court has expressed its anguish on more than one occasion regarding the complete inaction on the part of the Government to implement the Orders of this Court.

4. On 29.05.2023, after quoting the Order dated 12.01.2011, this Court observed as under:

“6. The case of the Petitioner is that the MCD had originally sanctioned the building plans. All the authorities had given their no objection on the earlier plan. However, in 2019 the FAR has been increased from 200% to 300%. However, when the FAR was increased, the plan had to be put up before the various authorities again including the Delhi Fire Service, AAI, ASI, Delhi Urban Arts Commission etc. However, it is submitted that, recently, the Chief Inspector of Factories and the Delhi Fire Service have rejected the building plan.

7. On the oral prayer of the Petitioner, the Airport Authority of India is impleaded as Respondent No. 10. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within one week. Ms. Nakra, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Airport Authority of India. 8. It is not even disputed before this Court by Mr. Satyakam, ld. ASC that the PWD has to construct the Chamber block. The land is already allotted for the purpose of the Chamber block construction which is land bearing 2180.05 Sq. yards adjoining Vyapar Bhawan at Indraprastha Estate by the L&DO. 9. Since the land has already been identified, this Court is unable to comprehend as to why there is a delay of more than 11 years even in commencing the construction. The Authorities within the Delhi Government have rejected the plan. In a matter of this nature,