Sai Sarala Pharmacy College, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 9421 of 2025

Sai Sarala Pharmacy …. Petitioner College, Balasore Represented By Adv. – Mrs. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

¶4

Represented By Adv.– Mr. U.K.Mohanty, ASC for OP No.1 Mr. R.C.Mohanty, Advocate For OPs.2 & 3 CORAM: JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶5

ORDER Order No. 04.09.2025 7. (Hybrid Mode)

¶6

1. The writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 5835 of 2025, W.P.(C) No. 9421 of 2025, W.P.(C) No. 9543 of 2025, W.P.(C) No. 10059 of 2025, W.P.(C) No. 10218 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 16087 of 2025, since they involve almost identical facts and identical questions of law, are taken up together.

¶7

The petitioners are institutions conducting different courses like Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician(DMLT), General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM), Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma) and B. Sc. Nursing. They have approached the Court in the premise that they have

¶8

Page 1 of 6

¶9

obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) to conduct courses for years prior to educational year 2025-26; thereafter they have not been able to apply for renewal of NOC for admitting students as per the prevailing statute/rules. In one of the writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 5835 of 2025 it has been contended that on 23^rd January, 2025 after the last date was over and the application process, on-line was stopped, they approached the authority by filing application physically. In the case of W.P.(C) No. 10059 of 2025 it is submitted by learned senior counsel Mr. Nanda that since the process involves on-line application, petitioners could not make an approach by submitting physical application for grant of NOC after the last date.

¶10

2. Learned counsel Mr. R.C. Mohanty appearing on behalf of opposite parties Directorate of Medical Education and Training (DMET) and The State Board of Pharmacy, referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the authorities have extended the date for submission of the application for obtaining NOC as would be evident from Annexure-A/2 annexed to the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) NO. 5835 of 2025. He submits that initial date was 20.12.2024 extended upto 15.1.2025. Thereafter there has been no extension.

¶11

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners including the learned senior counsel Mr. Nanda. It is contended that for this academic year the admission process is continuing and notified date for completion of admission process is 30^th September, 2025. It would be in

¶12

Page 2 of 6

¶13

nobody’s interest if existing institutions which had admitted students earlier having been granted NOC, will continue to exist without admitting any student for the academic year 2025-26. If the students are not allowed to be admitted, that would itself impact the survival of the institutions which will not be in the public interest as the institutions also run by employing so many staffs apart from imparting professional degree to the students.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties 2 & 3 in W.P.(C) No. 10059 of 2025 submit that in 2024 for the educational year 2024-25, 29 institutions were inspected/ verified and were granted NOC after the cut off date, some as per order of Court; and in 2023-24 without any order being passed by the court, the committee authorized for the purpose had taken a decision to allow some institutions to be considered for grant of renewal of NOC after verification/inspection.

¶15

5. Mr. R.C. Mohanty in response, submits that the authorities have acted bonafidely. They have followed prescribed rules and procedure, grant of renewal of NOC can never be an endless process and the authority cannot entertain applications beyond the cut off date.

¶16

6. We are of the considered opinion that the last date of application, for obtaining renewal of NOC for existing institutions, which had earlier obtained NOC to admit students, has statutory mandate as well as relevance. Since

¶17

Page 3 of 6

¶18

we are a court of equity, we also consider the larger aspect that the petitioner-institutions in the present batch of writ petitions can best serve the students and the public at large if they are again inspected by the authority as per the provisions of law and rules for granting renewal of NOC for the courses those were being administered/conducted by the petitionerinstitutions in the years prior to 2025-26.

¶19

7. We make this order as an one time measure. Considering submission of Mr. R.C.Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 that other institutions similarly situated may not take advantage of this order to approach the court and get a similar order as fence sitters, we accept the contentions of learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 that hereafter no further extension of time to apply for renewal of NOC to be granted on ground of equitable considerations.

¶20

8. Regarding consideration of the institutions for grant of renewal of NOC, we are conscious of the principle of law that who seeks equity must do equity, therefore, without prejudice to the contentions of the opposite parties or the rights and contentions of the petitioners, we direct that irrespective of any amount earlier paid by the institutions for consideration of their application for renewal of NOC, they shall be liable to pay the amount if required to be paid for grant of renewal of NOC. For consideration of the delayed application made/to be made for grant of NOC the petitioner institution shall have to deposit an amount extra over and above the amount of fee of ₹20,000/- required to be deposited for renewal of NOC. In the

¶21

Page 4 of 6

¶22

present writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.9421 of 2025 the amount shall be ₹20,000/- plus ₹30,000/- apart from the fees required for application for renewal of NOC. The extra amount of ₹30,000/- is directed considering the fact that the institute had not shown anything regarding approaching the authority after the extended last date of 15.01.2025, however, the petition was filed on 18.03.2025.

¶23

9. We reiterate and highlight that this order is passed in the context and facts of present batch of case taking into account the interest of students, who are seeking admission and admission process is continuing till 30^th September, 2025. In any event, since we are not deciding the matter on merit and on the question of law, they will not have any precedential value.

¶24

10. The petitioners are directed to apply to the authority(ies) by 10^th September, 2025 peremptorily failing which no further extension shall be granted in any manner whatsoever. The authorities shall act upon production of the website copy of this order. Petitioners are also directed to file hard copy with scanned/soft copy of all the documents before the authority(ies) by the said date along with requisite fees, as directed above, in the form and manner (e.g. Demand Draft, IMPS, RTGS. NEFT etc.) that is usually accepted by the authority(ies).

¶25

It is further directed that the authorities shall act upon applications made by 10.9.2025 and consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision by 16.09.2025.

¶26

Page 5 of 6

¶27

dutta

¶28

It is further clarified that if the authorities find the petitioner institution eligible to admit the students, the same shall be notified in the website/admission procedure as adopted by the appropriate respective council(s).

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of above order. Urgent certified copy of the order shall be granted as per Rules.

¶30

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 04-Sep-2025 20:57:16

¶33

Page 6 of 6

Sai Sarala Pharmacy College, Balasore v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Sarala Pharmacy College, Balasore v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Mohan Bag Vs the District Judge, Jharsuguda

Sushama Behera Vs State of Odisha

Capital Institute of Health Science, Mancheswar, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Qnetic Techno Medical Foundation, Khurda Vs State of Odisha

Sri Krishna Nursing Training School, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Sai Academy of Nursing Sciences Jajpur Vs State of Odisha