p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20736 of 2025 Capital Institute of Health Science, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Khurda …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Sohan Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv._ Mr. Prem Ku. Mohanty, ASC (for Opposite Party No.1) Mr. R.C. Mohanty, Advocate (for opposite parties No.2 & 3) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 02.09.2025 (Hybrid mode) 01. 1. The petitioner-Institution seeks interference of this Court alleging that No Objection Certificate (NOC) for General Nursing & Midwifery (GNM) 60 seats and Auxiliary Nurse & Midwife (ANM) 60 seats courses for the academic session 2025-2026 have not been granted by the opposite parties No.2 & 3-authority. 2. Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel who usually appears for opposite parties No.2 & 3 is present. Copy of the Writ Petition has been served on Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel. 3. The petitioner-Institution’s name finds at Sl.15 of letter dated 04.06.2025 issued by the opposite party No.3-authority that is the list of new Nursing Institutions for the academic session 2025-26 which are not recommended. p. 2 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wants renewal of NOC granted earlier. 5. Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that he has obtained instructions from the appropriate authority that if the petitioner applies for renewal with prescribed fees, the same shall be considered by the authority, in view of the petitioner’s submission that it is otherwise entitled for renewal of the No Objection Certificate (NOC). Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Institution has in fact applied as per his instruction for fresh NOC with the prescribed fees. 6. On being asked Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that fees prescribed for fresh NOC and the renewal as same. On being further asked Mr. R.C. Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No.2 and 3-Authority submits that the authority can consider the application stated to have been made by the petitioner-Institution for renewal of NOC. 7. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the submission made at the bar, we dispose of the writ petition observing that if the petitioner-Institution has in fact applied for fresh NOC along with requisite fees, the authority shall have the liberty to consider the same in accordance with law for grant of renewal of NOC in terms of the prevailing rules. We appreciate the prompt response of the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3, since it relates to grant of NOC for the academic year 2025-26 for which the admission process is in progress. p. 3 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above order. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge. Narayan/Ranjeeta