Parity warrants a further opportunity to apply for NOC renewal when admission deadlines are extended.

The petitioner, which conducts a B.Sc. Nursing course, had received renewals 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 permitted similarly situated institutions to apply by 24 August 2026, subject to payment of an additional ₹50,000, while describing that relief as a one-time measure and directing that no further extension be granted.

The admission deadline was subsequently extended from 30 September to 31 October 2026.

Relying on that extension and the earlier order, the petitioner sought a similar opportunity to apply for renewal.

Opposite Parties 2 and 3 opposed the request, contending that the earlier order was confined to its own facts and should not be extended.

1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to apply late for renewal of its NOC, notwithstanding the earlier order’s direction against further extensions, on grounds of parity and the subsequent extension of the admission deadline.

2. Whether such permission should be subject to an additional payment and a strict filing deadline.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle of parity, reasoning that a prior order in a similar matter could not be disregarded when materially similar circumstances arose.

It relied on State of Odisha v. Priyambada Pattanaik, SLP No. 10598 of 2024, decided 9 September 2024, in which the Supreme Court stated that an order expressed to be confined to peculiar facts and not treated as precedent could nevertheless be followed where the same set of facts and circumstances arose in the same State.

The Court also considered the earlier High Court order of 13 August 2026, which had granted a one-time opportunity to similarly situated institutions, and the subsequent extension of the B.Sc. Nursing admission deadline.

Although the petitioner had not applied within the original time limit, the Court considered that the admission deadline had since been extended to 31 October 2026, leaving time for the petitioner to apply and for the authorities to decide the application.

In light of the earlier relief granted to similarly situated institutions and the Supreme Court’s approach to parity in Priyambada Pattanaik, the Court declined to withhold comparable relief solely because the earlier order was stated to have no precedential value.

Given the petitioner’s failure to justify a diligent attempt to apply before the original deadline, the Court imposed a higher additional payment of ₹60,000 and a peremptory filing deadline.

It directed that no further extension be granted if the petitioner missed that deadline.

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 with those directions.