Parity warrants extending a one-time NOC application opportunity to similarly situated institutions.

The Petitioner-institution conducts Post Basic B.Sc. and M.Sc. Nursing courses and had previously received renewal of its NOC.

Renewal for 2025–26 was refused because it lacked a valid Fire Safety Certificate; the institution obtained a certificate in December 2025 but did not apply in time for renewal for 2026–27.

In an earlier batch, the Court had permitted similarly situated institutions to apply by 24 August 2026, subject to an additional payment, while describing that relief as a one-time measure.

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

The Petitioner confined its claim to 2026–27 and sought a similar opportunity to apply for renewal.

1. Whether the Petitioner should, on grounds of parity and the extension of the admission deadline, be permitted to apply late for renewal of its NOC for 2026–27 on terms similar to those granted to other institutions.

2. Whether the Court should impose additional conditions and a time limit on any such opportunity, given the Petitioner’s failure to apply within the original deadline.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle of parity, holding that relief granted in similar circumstances may support similar directions even where the earlier order stated that it was not to operate as a precedent.

It relied on State of Odisha v. Priyambada Pattanaik, SLP No. 10598 of 2024, decided 9 September 2024, where the Supreme Court extended the same terms to parties facing the same set of facts and circumstances despite the earlier order’s non-precedential character.

The Court also considered its order of 13 August 2026, which had permitted applications by similarly situated institutions subject to a deadline and additional payment.

Although the Petitioner had not applied by the deadline fixed in the earlier order, the admission deadline had since been extended to 31 October 2026, and the Petitioner stated that it had obtained the required Fire Safety Certificate.

In light of those changed circumstances and the treatment of similarly situated institutions, the Court found no reason to deny the Petitioner the same opportunity.

However, because the Petitioner had not demonstrated a diligent attempt to apply earlier, the Court required an additional payment of ₹60,000 and imposed a strict two-day filing deadline to accommodate the remaining admission timeline.

No further extension was to be granted if that deadline was missed.

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.