Back
Rajasthan HC Cracks Down: Principal Secretary Summoned Over 'Deliberate Disrespect' to Court Orders
In a stern rebuke to bureaucratic inertia, the has directed the Principal Secretary of the to personally appear before it—or via video conferencing—on , for failing to comply with repeated orders to submit an inspection report for 's application. Justice Sanjeet Purohit, presiding over , labeled the department's conduct as " ," underscoring a pattern of " " toward judicial directives.
From NOC Plea to Courtroom Showdown: The Long Road of Delays
The saga began when sought state permission and an NOC to establish a physiotherapy institution. Despite initial inaction by the , the college approached the High Court in . The court ordered consideration of the application within three months. Follow-up representations yielded no inspection, prompting a .
An inspection was eventually conducted, and sources indicate a positive report emerged, yet the NOC remained elusive. The college filed an RTI for the report but received no response. In , the court first directed the Additional Advocate General to place the inspection report on record. Reminders followed on , and , with a final chance granted. Even on , compliance was absent, leading to this escalation.
Petitioner's Frustration vs. Respondent's Perpetual 'More Time'
Petitioner's counsel, , highlighted repeated judicial directives ignored despite court prodding. The college argued that a favorable inspection report was being withheld, stalling its establishment amid claims of departmental opacity.
For the respondents, acknowledged communications sent to the department but repeatedly sought extensions, citing internal hurdles without substantive compliance.
Unpacking the Court's Fury: A Pattern of Systemic Failure
Justice Purohit's order meticulously chronicles the timeline of lapses—from the initial
directive to ongoing defiance. No precedents were cited, but the ruling invokes the
to enforce compliance in
, emphasizing accountability in administrative functions. The court distinguished this from mere oversight, terming it "willful," and extended criticism to similar failures in other institutional inspection cases, revealing
"flaws, non-transparency, and lack of accountability."
This analysis integrates the department's track record, positioning the case as emblematic of broader governance issues in regulatory approvals for educational institutions.
Court's Sharp Words: Quotes That Cut Deep
-
On repeated defiance :
"In spite of repeated directions given by this Court to place on record the inspection report of petitioner – college, the same has not been complied with by respondents."
-
Timeline of neglect :
"Thereafter a lapse of one year on 20.11.2025, this Court again issued directions for compliance with order dated 26.11.2024."
-
Damning characterization :
"This Court finds that the conduct of Respondent Department clearly amounts to
with the orders of this Court and reflects
towards the same."
-
Broader indictment :
"This is not a standalone instance. In several other matters... respondent Department, has failed to comply with the same, which indicates flaws, non-transparency, and lack of accountability."
Final Orders and Ripples Ahead
The court mandated the Principal Secretary's presence at 2:00 p.m. on , with a filed by that date. It must explain delays in compliance and the untimely NOC refusal.
This ruling signals zero tolerance for executive foot-dragging in judicial matters, potentially spurring stricter oversight in NOC processes for medical/physiotherapy colleges. Future cases may cite it to demand personal accountability from top officials, fostering swifter administrative responses and greater transparency.
