The Delhi High Court has conveyed its disappointment at the lack of substantial progress by the city government regarding the construction of specific chambers for lawyers. Despite a directive issued 12 years ago, the court has urged the chief secretary to provide a clear plan for implementing this project.

During a hearing on a petition lodged by the Sales Tax Bar Association, Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that the current status report suggests authorities are not following the directives. He cautioned that the court's orders must not be disregarded without consequences.

"The passage of twelve years without any progress is disheartening. This court has repeatedly voiced its frustration over the government's total lack of action in executing the court's directives," stated the judge in a recent order.

"The chief secretary is instructed to present a clear roadmap by the upcoming hearing date outlining the timeline for completing the construction and ensuring the court's orders are carried out," stated the order.

The judge scheduled a subsequent hearing for January 12 and directed the special commissioner of the department of trade and taxes, along with the special secretary of the public works department (PWD), to be present in court for the proceedings.

Back in January 2011, the high court issued an order, prompted by a different plea from the petitioner, regarding the construction of a building designated for lawyers' chambers and state offices. However, the petitioner lodged the current petition last year due to non-compliance with the previously issued order.

The court said last year that it was "unable to comprehend" why there was a delay of 11 years in the implementation of the order when the land was identified and called for "better coordination" between the state authorities in the interest of the legal community.

In its recent order, the court acknowledged from the status report that the Delhi government is considering the construction of a twin tower on the specified land, which would necessitate a complete alteration of the initial plan.

"This status report indicates that the State is not acting in accordance with the directions passed by this court in 2011, rather is acting contrary to the directions of the court," the judge observed.