Coming down on prolonged delays in creating basic infrastructure for the subordinate judiciary, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an affidavit from the Punjab Chief Secretary on “why so much delay takes place in providing infrastructure to the judiciary, whereas expeditious availability of infrastructure is given to the executive.”Taking up a PIL by Malerkotla District Bar Association, the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry flagged glaring lapses across districts, and chose Moga, Mohali and Pathankot as lead cases to examine the issue of deficient judicial infrastructure.“Since taking up all the districts in the State of Punjab in regard to the issue of deficient infrastructure for judiciary at the district level may not be possible, we take up three districts, Moga, Mohali and Pathankot, as the lead districts to proceed in this matter,” the bench observed.The court recorded that Moga was carved out as a district in 1995, but the process for establishing a judicial court complex had remained incomplete even after decades.The bench observed that a decision to acquire 76-kanal and 1-marla for constructing a new judicial court complex was taken sometime in 2015. Thereafter, the High Court Building Committee, vide its resolution dated March 7, 2018, demanded an additional 59-kanals and 7 marlas.“The acquisition of this additional land has not yet been finalised, despite the lapse of more than eight years,” the bench observed.The bench added that Mohali was made a district in 2006. “As per the affidavit dated April 7 of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, out of 10.21 acres approved, 6.237 acres have been allocated for Judicial residences, after about 20 years of the formation of the district,” the bench added.In Pathankot, formed in 2011, the situation was no better.“The land that was chosen for the construction of a judicial colony is a `protected forest’. A coordination meeting for the purpose was convened as late as March 17 under the chairmanship of a cabinet minister. An alternative site has been identified, which is within the PSPCL Colony, located at a distance of about one kilometre from the existing judicial court complex, Pathankot. None of these two steps taken by the State government has seen the light of the day, despite the district of Pathankot having been formed about 15 years ago,” the bench added.“Senior counsel for the High Court is also directed to give details as regards the three districts of Moga, Mohali and Pathankot, as to when the Building Committee of the High Court for the first time demanded infrastructure for these districts,” the bench added. The bench also called for a fresh status report with regard to three districts before fixing the case on May 15.Senior Advocate S.S. Behl appeared before the Bench for the petitioner, along with advocates Gaurav Vir Behl, Uru Sharma and Sagar Bansal.Senior Deputy Advocate-General Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab, while Additional Advocate-General Deepak Balyan appeared for Haryana.For the Union Territory, Additional Standing Counsel Abhinav Sood appeared, along with advocate Nitesh Jhajhria. Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra appeared for the High Court, along with advocates Shobit Phutela, Shourya Mehra, Seerat Saldi and Viren Jalwar.