Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Health And Education Care Society vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (1 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21321/2025
Health And Education Care Society, Gupta Nursing College,
Branch Office At - 23, Green Valley Village, Gadwada Bhansol,
Upali Odan, Near Shrinath Engineering College, Tehsil Mavli,
District - Udaipur, Through Its President Shri Brijmohan Sharma,
S/o Late Shri Jagan Prasad Age - 77 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical
And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajastahn Nursing Council, Jaipur Through Its
Registrar, B-39, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Sector-18, Pratap Nagar, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
4. Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And Para Medical
Institutions Society, Branch Office Jodhpur, Through Its
Secretary, Plot No. 273, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21286/2025
Health And Education Care Society, Gupta Nursing College,
Branch Office At - 23, Green Valley Village, Gadwada, Bhansol,
Upali Odan, Near Shrinath Engineering College, Tehsil Mavli,
District - Udaipur, Through Its President Shri Brijmohan Sharma,
S/o (Late) Shri Jagan Prasad, Age- 77 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical
And Health Department Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (2 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
2. The Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, Through Its
Registrar, B-39, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And Para Medical
Institutions Society, Branch Office Jodhpur, Through Its
Secretary, Plot No. 273, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
16/02/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of
direction to respondent No. 1 to issue No Objection Certificate
(“NOC”) to petitioner-institute for running Bachelor of Nursing
(B.Sc.) course/GNM course.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to
documents annexed with present writ petition, stated that all the
necessary infrastructure, hospital facilities etc. have been
established as per norms and other formalities have also been
complied with by petitioner-institute, however, required NOC has
not been granted by respondent authorities. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that although inspection of the
petitioner’s institution was made way back in July 2025, however,
neither the copy of inspection report was supplied to the petitioner
nor any communication was sent informing status said application.
In view of the said prolong inaction on the part of respondent –
authorities, present writ petition is filed.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (3 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
3. Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated
15.01.2026, has directed counsel for the respondent to place
inspection report on record. Since the same was not filed, similar
directions were issued on 03.02.2026, but to utter dismay, the
same has not been placed on record. In such circumstances, this
Court was compelled to pass order dated 11.02.2026 and granted
last opportunity to respondent to place on record inspection
report, also made clear that on failure to comply with said
directions, the Secretary, Medical and Health Department shall
remain present before this Court.
4. Today, by way of reply to writ petition, inspection report has
been placed on record. A perusal of the inspection report revealed
that said inspection was done on 13.07.2025, wherein the
following recommendation was made by the inspecting team:-
“After physical inspection of Gupta Nursing College,
KishangarhBas and its parental hospital, the Committee
found the infrastructure, hostel and clinical facilities as per
norms of INC and departmental guidelines. The Committee
finally recommends grant of approval to Gupta Nursing
College for starting the following courses with mentioning
seat:
B.Sc (Nursing) 30 Seats
GNM 30 Seats”
5. During the course of proceedings, this Court put a specific
query was posed to learned counsel for respondents i.e., despite
the inspecting committee’s clear recommendation for grant of NOC
made way back in July 2025, why has the required NOC not been
issued even after a lapse of eight months ? No satisfactory
explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the
respondents for such inordinate delay. He stated that the
application as well as inspection report is pending consideration
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (4 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
before High Power Committee, which shall take final decision in
due course.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. This court has taken note of Guidelines regarding
‘Establishment of Nursing Schools/Colleges/Universities in
the Private Sector’ issued by Respondent authorities in 2024
(Annex.3). Said guidelines clearly stipulates that entire process of
issuance of NOC has to be completed in 90 days. It further
provides that application shall be disposed of within 45 days of
receipt of the inspection report.
8. This Court finds that inaction on the part of respondents in
not deciding applications for grant of NOC is in clear defiance of
their own guidelines. Such oblivious conduct has rendered the
spirit and object of the timeline provided in said guidelines
nugatory. Moreover, the inexplicable delay by State authorities in
granting NOC, despite inspecting committee’s unequivocal
recommendation made way back in July 2025 is nothing short of
deplorable. A lapse of over eight months in processing a routine
clearance reveals callous disregard for public interest and
slackness in discharge of their duties. This Court is constrained to
observe that such gross inaction is compelling institutions to seek
extraordinary remedies from this Court.
9. The authorities’ high-handedness in sitting over NOC
applications despite favourable inspection report, as exemplified in
the present case, not only undermines the rule of law but
transforms this Court into an unwilling de facto regulator of the
process of grant of NOC. This Court records its profound
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (5 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
displeasure at the State authorities’ egregious lapses that compel
institutions to approach this Court for issuance of writ of
mandamus at every stage; whether for processing the application
or for carrying out inspection, for procuring copies of inspection
report, or for final NOC grant, thereby inundating judicial dockets
with avoidable litigation and exposing systemic governance failure
warranting the strongest censure.
10. Very recently, a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
702/2026) came before this Court wherein the validity period of
certain NOCs such as Fire NOCs, Biomedical NOCs etc. which were
having their validity period at the time of inspection were expired
solely due to inordinate delay attributable to the State authorities,
who sat over the application without any justification. By the time
the authorities finally considered the matter, the said NOCs had
lapsed, which compelled for renewal of the said NOCs. This Court
is appalled by such inaction, which perpetuates a vicious cycle of
litigation, extracting multiple rounds of compliance from
institutions while the executive remains unreactive.
11. Notably, a bare perusal of the Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery
of Public Services Act, 2011 (“Act of 2011”) makes it abundantly
clear that the legislature has enacted the said statute with the
object of ensuring timely and accountable delivery of public
services. Section 4 of the Act confers upon citizen a statutory
“right to service” within the stipulated time limit. The same is
reproduced herein below:
“4. Right to obtain service within the stipulated time
limit.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (6 of 9) [CW-21321/2025](1) The designated officer shall provide the service
notified under Section 3 to the person eligible to obtain
the service, within the stipulated time limit.
(2) The designated officer may seek assistance of any
other officer or employee as he considers it necessary
for the proper discharge of his duties under
sub-section (1).
(3) any officer or employee, whose assistance has been
sought under subsection (2), shall render all assistance
to the designated officer seeking his assistance and for
the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of
this Act, search other officer or employee, as the case
maybe, shall be treated a designated officer.”
12. Moreover, Section 5 of Act of 2011 mandates that upon
receipt of an application, the designated officer is duty-bound,
within such prescribed period, either to provide the service or to
reject the application by recording reasons in writing. The entire
scheme of the Act, including the appellate remedies under Section
6 and the imposition of penalty under Section 7 for delay or failure
without sufficient cause, reflects the legislative intent to curb
administrative inertia and to eliminate the culture of indefinite
governmental inaction.
13. In the present case, the authorities having sat over the
petitioner’s application for grant of NOC for an inordinate length of
time have acted in complete derogation of the statutory mandate,
thereby frustrating the very purpose for which the Act of 2011 was
brought into force. Such unexplained delay not only defeats the
citizen’s guaranteed right to timely service but also strikes at the
core of transparency, efficiency and public accountability sought to
be achieved by the legislature.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (7 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
14. Once the inspecting committee records unqualified
satisfaction with all requisite compliances and records a clear
recommendation for NOC grant, the petitioner institution acquires
a legitimate expectation of time-bound processing for issuance of
formal NOC. The failure to honour this expectation breeds
cynicism, compelling repeated judicial interventions and eroding
public faith in administrative processes.
15. This Hon’ble High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
19116/2023 held that State authorities are under an obligation
to decide the application for grant of NOC to institution/colleges
expeditiously. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the
respondent-State is under an obligation to decide the
cases of the petitioners-Institutions for grant of “No
Objection Certificate” expeditiously, so that the
students, who are studying in the petitioners-
Institutions may not suffer and their future may not
hang in uncertainty.”
16. Moreover, the State authorities’ practice of collecting
application fees for NOC applications, only to sit over such
applications without any tangible progress, raises serious
questions of fairness and accountability.
17. Merely specifying broad or general timelines in the guidelines
(Annex.3) is insufficient to ensure effective and expeditious
disposal of applications. This Court finds it necessary that a
detailed and comprehensive framework prescribing specific
timelines for each distinct stage of the application process should
be in place. The respondent State authorities are, therefore,
directed to formulate and notify, within eight weeks from
today, Rajasthan Grant of NOC/Approval/Permission
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (8 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
(Education) Framework-2026 for grant of required NOC /
approval / permission for all kinds of all educational courses /
establishment of colleges etc. by establishing a fully digitized
online portal with real-time tracking and strict timelines for all
stages from submission to final disposal. Broadly, the Framework
shall incorporate designated nodal officers for accountability,
mandatory inspections, uploading such inspection reports in a
time-bound manner, penalty provisions for delays, public
transparency measures including notice board displays and RTI
compliance, etc. The State of Rajasthan is free to incorporate all
other aspects which may be necessary to ensure time-bound
disposal of the applications of such nature. The Chief Secretary,
State of Rajasthan is directed to ensure the compliance of this
order for preparation of a comprehensive framework as directed
above within the stipulated period.
18. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case and serious lapses attributable to the respondent
authorities, this Court considers the present matter to be a fit case
for imposition of heavy costs upon the State for its failure to
regulate and process the grant of NOC in a timely manner. The
Court is constrained to observe that such administrative inaction
has resulted in wholly avoidable litigation, thereby causing
unnecessary wastage of the precious time of this Court, which
could have otherwise been devoted for adjudication of more
deserving matters.
19. However, learned AAG Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, has prayed that
no personal costs be imposed upon the concerned officers at this
stage and has assured this Court that the requisite NOC shall be
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8643] (9 of 9) [CW-21321/2025]
granted in favour of the petitioner institution within a period of
fifteen days from today. In view of the insistence and request
made by Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General
and the assurance given at the bar, this Court, though reluctantly,
refrains from imposing costs at this stage.
20. It is made clear that in the event, the required NOC is not
granted in favour of the petitioner-institution within fifteen days,
this Court shall take serious note thereof by initiating appropriate
action, including but not limited to imposition of heavy costs
personally on the concerned officer.
21. The State authorities shall also place on record the status
report regarding the directions given by this Court and contained
in para 17 of this order.
22. List the matter on 09.03.2026.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
35-36-JatinS/-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 04:20:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:34:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
