Health Department directed to decide the pending No Objection Certificate representation within four weeks.

The petitioner, an Institute of Pharmacy represented through its Secretary, applied to the Health Department, Government of Bihar, for grant of a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) to conduct D. Pharm and B. Pharm courses with intake capacities of 60 and 100 students, respectively, for the academic session 2023–24.

Pursuant to the application, the Officer on Special Duty, Health Department, constituted an Expert Committee by Memo No. 1006(17) dated 4 October 2023.

The Committee inspected the institution on 2 December 2023 and submitted its report to the Health Department.

Although the petitioner claimed that the report was favourable, no final decision was taken on the NOC application.

The petitioner alleged that the delay prevented it from admitting students during the academic sessions 2023–24 to 2026–27.

The State sought a short adjournment to ascertain the status of the petitioner’s claim.

Whether the respondents should be directed to take a final decision on the petitioner’s pending application/representation for grant of an NOC after completion of the expert inspection and submission of the Committee’s report.

Whether the prolonged failure of the Health Department to pass a decision on the NOC application warranted judicial intervention and a time-bound direction.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent public authority must consider and decide a pending representation or statutory/administrative claim within a reasonable time, particularly where the relevant inquiry or expert assessment has already been completed.

The Court further relied on the principle that unexplained administrative inaction and prolonged delay may justify a mandamus directing the authority to bring the matter to its logical conclusion.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment; the order was based on the respondents’ continuing administrative obligation to take a reasoned and timely decision on the petitioner’s NOC request.

The Court noted that the Expert Committee had inspected the petitioner’s Institute on 2 December 2023 and had already submitted its report to the Health Department.

Since the administrative process had progressed to the stage of expert evaluation, the respondents could not leave the petitioner’s NOC request undecided indefinitely.

The Court also took into account that the matter had remained pending for approximately two years and that the alleged delay had adversely affected the institution’s ability to admit students.

Accordingly, without itself deciding whether the NOC should be granted, the Court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an appropriate final decision within a specified period.

The Court cautioned that any violation of the prescribed timeframe would be viewed seriously, given the prolonged pendency of the matter.

The Court did not direct automatic issuance of the NOC; it required the competent authority to make a final decision on the petitioner’s claim.