Extended admission deadlines warrant parity-based late NOC-renewal applications for similarly situated institutions.

DRIEMS University conducts undergraduate and postgraduate allied health-care courses, including BOT, BPT, MPT and MOT.

It had previously received renewal of its NOC, but renewal was not granted from 2024 onwards because it lacked a valid Fire Safety Certificate. The University obtained that certificate in February 2026 but did not apply for renewal within the prescribed time.

On 13 August 2026, in W.P.(C) No. 7990 of 2026 and batch, the Court had permitted certain institutions to apply by 24 August 2026, on payment of an additional Rs. 50,000, while describing the relief as a one-time measure and stating that it would have no precedential value.

The admission deadline for the relevant courses was subsequently extended from 30 September to 31 October 2026. DRIEMS sought a similar opportunity to apply for renewal.

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

It applied the principle of parity, holding that an earlier order in similar matters may support similar directions where the same relevant circumstances arise, notwithstanding that the earlier order was stated to be non-precedential.

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September 2024, where the Supreme Court disposed of a matter on the same terms as an earlier order despite that order’s non-precedential qualification.

The Court also considered its order of 13 August 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 7990 of 2026 and batch, which had allowed applications by a specified deadline, subject to an additional payment.

The Court acknowledged that DRIEMS had not applied within the deadline fixed for the institutions in the earlier batch and had not demonstrated a diligent attempt to do so.

However, the admission deadline had since been extended to 31 October 2026, providing a changed circumstance and a remaining opportunity for left-out institutions to seek renewal.

Considering that change and the relief afforded to similarly situated institutions, the Court found no sufficient reason to deny DRIEMS the same benefit on parity.

In light of its failure to act diligently, however, it imposed a higher additional payment of Rs. 60,000 rather than the Rs. 50,000 required in the earlier batch.

The deadline was made peremptory, with no further extension to be granted for non-compliance.

The authorities were directed to consider the application in accordance with law as soon as possible, preferably by 27 October 2026.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.