[2025:RJ-JP:42148] (1 of 4) [CW-7359/2025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7359/2025 Dhattarwal Education Society, (Shri TRD nursing college), Hamirwas Lamba, mandrella, district-jhunjhunu (rajasthan) through its secretary sandeep kumar son of shri shivdan singh, aged about 41 years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, (Group-3) Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar, B-39, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Rajasthan University Of Health And Science, Through Its Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And Para Medical Institutions Society, Branch Office Jodhpur Through Its Secretary, Plot No. 237, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav, Adv. Mr. Vishivas Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. M.A. Khan, Adv. Ms. Rakha Jain, Adv. Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 15/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the 6th round of litigation by the petitioner, wherein the only relief sought is for taking appropriate action for grant of permission to establish Nursing College of B.Sc. course with 60 seats, for which the petitioner had [2025:RJ-JP:42148] (2 of 4) [CW-7359/2025] approached this Court time and again for each step, however, the ultimate relief as prayed for, has not been granted till date. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Inspection Report dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure-2), in the conclusion of which, the Inspection team has recommended for grant of NOC / recognition to the petitioner-College. In spite of the said clear recommendation made by the Inspecting team, the desired NOC has not been granted by the State-Authorities, till date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that in pursuance of the direction for consideration given by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4779/2023, the respondents-authorities have issued Communication dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-5) specifying only three deficiencies and on the basis of which, the request of the petitioner was denied. 4. The required documents for explaining the deficiencies so pointed in Communication dated 30.05.2023, were submitted. The petitioner again approached this Court for objective consideration of its case for grant of NOC and this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20373/2023, vide order dated 24.01.2024 issued following directions:- “4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. without going into merits and demerits of the case, since version and cross-version have been made by the respective counsels with regard to the facility available in the petitioner institution. 6. This Court deems it just and proper to remit the matter to the respondents to re-examine the matter in the light of the inspection report submitted by the Inspection Committee and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, as early as possible not beyond the period of seven days from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 7. It is made clear that this Court is not issuing any direction to the respondents to take a decision in a particular way, however they are expected to take a decision after due application of mind, in accordance with law.“ [2025:RJ-JP:42148] (3 of 4) [CW-7359/2025] 5. In spite of the specific directions so issued by this Court, the compliance of the same has not been made by the respondent- authorities and the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this Court by way of filing contempt petition against the respondent- authorities. 6. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the order impugned dated 19.03.2025 was passed by the respondents whereby, six new deficiencies have been pointed out. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on each occasion, the respondent-authorities have come out with a new deficiency showing the same as ground for rejecting the request of the petitioner instead for grant of NOC. The same clearly shows predetermined approach of the respondent-authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inspection report (Annexure-2) contains a clear recommendation by the Inspection Committee for grant of NOC to the petitioner institution and that gives no room of discretion to the respondent-authorities for grant of NOC. However, the petitioner has submitted the necessary documents while explaining the said six deficiencies so pointed out in order dated 19.03.2025. 7. Since, the petitioner has already submitted the required explanation as well as relevant documents to satisfy the deficiencies so pointed out in order impugned dated 19.03.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the same in light of the Inspection Report (Annexure-2). The petitioner is directed to file a fresh detailed representation and place on record all the material to explain or satisfy the deficiencies so pointed out in the order dated 19.03.2025 within a period of 15 days from today. The respondent-authorities are also directed to consider and decide the said representation within a period 4 weeks from the [2025:RJ-JP:42148] (4 of 4) [CW-7359/2025] date of receipt of the said representation, with reasoned order. It is expected from the State-Authorities to consider the application of the petitioner in an objective and judicious manner and shall not enter into hyper-technicalities. 8. As it has been noticed that even on earlier occasion, when similar directions were issued by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2024, the due compliance in the prescribed time was not made by the respondent-authorities and the same has led the petitioner to file a consecutive petitions so also a Contempt petition. We expect that such conduct would not be repeated by the respondents and the due compliance of this order should be done on behalf of the respondent- authorities. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J AVINASH GULERIA /36