p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) NO.22020 OF 2026 Balabati Devi School of Nursing, Khordha …. Petitioner Mr. Parsuram Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Additional Government Advocate (for O.P. No.1) Mr. R. C. Mohanty, Advocate (For O.P. Nos.2 and 3) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER Order No. 22.07.2026 01. 1. Petitioner in this writ application seeks for a direction to set aside the order of rejection communicated to it vide letter No.555 dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-3), whereby application of the Petitioner-institution for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) was rejected. 2. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the Directorate of Medical Education & Training, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 to issue NOC in respect of the Petitioner-institution for Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing course for academic session 2026-2027 with intake capacity of 60 seats. 3. We heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner at length. Page 2 of 3 4. In course of hearing, we found that the NOC was refused to the Petitioner-institution on two grounds i.e. 249 BALABATI DEVI SCHOOL OF NURSING, Xt-PL0TN0 424 LINGIPUR, POSISUPALGARH, VIASISUPALGARH, DISTKHORDA, PIN-751002 Khorda P.B.B.Sc- N 60 1. FIRE SAFETY CERTIFICATE FORM V FROM DFO NOT SUBMITTED FOR TEACHING BLOCK- 2. 2. TEACHING BLOCK-1 GROUND FLOOR IS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AS PER GEOTAGGED PHOTO. On scrutiny of the case record, it appears that fire safety certificate was issued for one number of towers/blocks as per inspection held on 03.09.2025. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 submits that the fire safety certificate submitted by the Petitioner- institution was incomplete in respect of two academic towers namely tower Nos.1 and 2. No fire safety certificate was issued or produced by the Petitioner-institution in respect of academic tower No.2. Further, the ground floor of tower No.1 is being used for commercial purpose. 6. In view of the above, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition submitting that the Petitioner-institution may make a fresh application in accordance with law after rectifying the aforesaid deficiencies. In support of his contention, he files a memo in Court today, which is taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. Page 3 of 3 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, however, submits that the Petitioner-institution may not make any further application for academic session 2026-27. But he has no objection to the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition and approaching the authority. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Gs/jyostna