Parity permits extending a one-time NOC-renewal opportunity to similarly situated institutions.

The petitioner institution, which offers a Master in Public Health (MPH) course, had received renewal of its No Objection Certificate (NOC) in previous academic years but did not apply for renewal for the current year within the prescribed time.

In an earlier batch of cases, the High Court had, as a one-time measure, allowed similarly situated institutions to apply by 24 August 2026 on payment of an additional ₹50,000, while stating that no further extensions would be granted.

The petitioner sought similar relief after the last date for MPH admissions was extended from 30 September to 31 October 2026.

The authorities opposed relief, arguing that the earlier order was expressly non-precedential and that granting relief could prompt similar claims.

1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to apply out of time for renewal of its NOC, despite the deadline and limitation stated in the earlier one-time order, on grounds of parity and the subsequent extension of the admission deadline.

2. Whether such relief should be subject to additional payment and a strict deadline for filing the application.

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

It applied the principle of parity, reasoning that an earlier order in similar matters could not be disregarded solely because it was framed as non-precedential.

It relied on State of Odisha v. Priyambada Pattanaik, SLP No. 10598 of 2024, decided on 9 September 2024, in which the Supreme Court applied the same terms and conditions to cases involving the same facts and circumstances, notwithstanding that the earlier order was stated not to be a precedent.

The Court also treated its order of 13 August 2026 as a one-time measure in its particular context, including the ongoing admission process.

Although the petitioner had not applied within the earlier deadline and had not shown a diligent attempt to do so, the Court considered the subsequent extension of the admission deadline a changed circumstance that provided an opportunity for left-out institutions to apply.

Given the extended admissions period and the earlier relief granted to similarly situated institutions, the Court found no sufficient reason to deny the petitioner the same benefit on parity grounds.

The petitioner’s lack of diligence justified requiring an additional payment of ₹60,000, rather than the ₹50,000 imposed in the earlier batch.

The deadline was peremptory, with no further extension to be granted.

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

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.