'No One Above Law': Rajasthan High Court Issues Show-Cause Notice To Deputy Collector For Defying Judicial Orders
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of a Deputy District Collector and Magistrate's repeated non-compliance of its orders requiring expeditious adjudication of an application filed by a 70 year old widow under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”).While underscoring the object of the Act to provide financial security to...
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of a Deputy District Collector and Magistrate's repeated non-compliance of its orders requiring expeditious adjudication of an application filed by a 70 year old widow under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”).
While underscoring the object of the Act to provide financial security to senior citizens, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that the Act was designed for rapid relief. It held that the Magistrate could not be allowed to sit over the matter for indefinite period of time and deliberately flout the directions of the Court.
The Court further observed that no one is above law, and the legal orders had to be universally obeyed to maintain the majesty of law, and also order and justice in the society.
“The Aforesaid act of the Presiding Officer is totally unwarranted because, he being a quasi judicial entity, is always supposed to follow the orders passed by the Court and comply with the directions, in a timely manner, as and when directed by the Court…The failure of a quasijudicial authority to comply with the orders issued by the Court definitely constitutes gross misconduct on his part. Such noncompliance undermines the rule of law and the judicial hierarchy, rendering the Presiding Officer concerned liable for the disciplinary proceedings.”
The Court wash hearing a petition filed by a 70-year old widow woman, who had filed an application under the Act in March 2024. The respondents were served in 2024, but no final arguments were heard after which a petition was filed before the Court. The Court had directed the Magistrate to decide the matter within one month.
When this order was not complied with, another petition was filed before the Court that again resulted in same directions to the Magistrate, in May 2025, along with a caution of non-compliance being viewed seriously. However, the matter was not decided. Hence, again the petition was filed before the Court seeking transfer of the application.
In this background, explanation was sought from the Magistrate for the non-compliance, towards which the response merely stated the next date of the matter fixed for final hearing, without providing any reasons for the non-compliance.
Furthermore, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, even the date mentioned in the response was not adhered to and after that the matter was further deferred 6 times, with the next date being February 2026.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that the Magistrate was not inclined to decide the application or to comply with the directions of the Court.
It was held that such a disobedience was an attack on the foundation of the rule of law, on which the entire democracy was based.
The Court observed that the Tribunal under the Act was legally obliged to dispose of the application strictly as per the timelines provided which was generally 90 days, yet the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post. While highlighting that the Magistrate was deliberately deferring the matter and not complying with the Court's orders, the Court held,
“The instant case is a glaring example of its own kind where nothing has been done by the Presiding Officer except posting the matter from one date to another and not bothering to the directions twice issued by this Court to decide the pending matter within a period of 30 days. He is not expected to take the orders of this Court in a very callous and casual manner. In the considered opinion of this Court, some departmental action is required to be taken against the erring Presiding Officer by his appointing authority or the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan.”
Accordingly, the Court issued a show cause notice to the Magistrate to appear in person, and provide an explanation for his misconduct.
Further, the Court deemed it fit to transfer the application of the petitioner to Sub-Divisional Officer, to be decided within one month.
The matter has been listed on February 12, 2026.
Title: Kesar Devi v Guddi Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 39