‘Busy celebrating diwali’: Punjab and Haryana High Court slams senior officials for ‘ignorance’ over urgent order

Criticising the board for taking its own time, while its officers were busy celebrating the diwali, the order added that they were expected to act on a “war footing”.

However, the court dismissed the plea, noting that there was no willful disobedience nor was the intent contumacious.

Findings

• The initial affidavit filed by the board stated that no fixed time period had been given for compliance with the directions. This stand is totally unacceptable.
• The stand that there were only four working days is also not acceptable.
  The needful could have been done within one working day.
• The board and the contemnors are, therefore, required to put their act together.
• However, there is no willful disobedience, nor is the intent contumacious.
• The affidavits tendered referred to administrative exigencies on account of fewer working days.
• But such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with the orders of the court.
• The element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely on account of delay in implementing the directions.

Background

• The legal battle originated from the plea where the college sought to quash an order denying affiliation for its D Pharm course.
• On October 17, 2025, a division bench of the high court ruled in favor of the college, emphasising that the Pharmacy Council of India is the primary regulatory body and its approval should be accorded primacy.
• The court directed the Punjab State Board of Technical Education to pass appropriate consequential orders to allow the institution to admit students.
• The petitioner college instituted the contempt petition alleging that despite the court’s “forthwith” directive, the board did not act until October 28, 2025, merely two days before the national admission deadline of October 30.
• Representing the college, the senior advocate, Pawan Kumar Mutneja, argued that it sent multiple emails and representations between October 18 and October 23, but was verbally informed that credentials for admissions would not be provided even under threat of contempt.
• Consequently, the college was only able to register two students before the portal closed.
• Appearing for the board, senior advocate Puneet Kaur Sekhon argued that there was no willful or deliberate disobedience.
• He contended that following the October 17 order, there were only four working days (October 21, 23, 24, and 27) because of the Diwali festival holidays.
• He further submitted that for the delay caused in the implementation of the directions issued on October 17, 2025, the board tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology.