A one-time NOC renewal opportunity may be extended to similarly situated institutions on grounds of parity.

The petitioner institution conducts a GNM course and had received NOC renewals in earlier academic years, but did not apply for renewal for the current year within the prescribed time.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court permitted similarly situated institutions to apply by 24 August 2026, subject to an additional payment of ₹50,000, while describing that relief as a one-time measure and stating that it would have no precedential value.

The deadline for GNM admissions was subsequently extended from 30 September to 31 October 2026. The petitioner sought a similar opportunity to apply for renewal.

Whether the petitioner, despite failing to apply by the earlier deadline, could be permitted to apply for renewal of its NOC on parity with institutions granted relief in the earlier proceedings.

If so, what deadline and additional payment should apply to the petitioner’s application.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle of parity, holding that relief granted in a similar matter cannot be disregarded solely because the earlier order was stated to have no precedential value.

In support, it relied on State of Odisha v. Priyambada Pattanaik, SLP No. 10598 of 2024, decided on 9 September 2024, where the Supreme Court granted relief in the same terms despite the earlier order being described as non-precedential, because the facts and circumstances were materially similar.

The Court also considered the changed admission deadline and the interests of students.

Although the petitioner had not applied within the earlier timeline and had not demonstrated a diligent attempt to do so, the admission deadline had since been extended to 31 October 2026.

In light of that changed circumstance, and the relief previously granted to similarly situated institutions, the Court considered that parity warranted allowing the petitioner to apply. It distinguished the petitioner’s position by requiring a higher additional payment of ₹60,000, noting the absence of a justified diligent attempt to apply before the original deadline.

The authorities were directed to act in accordance with law and decide the application as soon as possible, preferably by 27 October 2026. The writ petition was disposed of with those directions.