Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No. 9384 of 2004 dated 21.02.2005.) Markandey Katju, C.J. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.02.2005. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) with a view to start B.Sc., (Nursing) Course applied to the State Government on 28.8.1997 for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to start the said course from the academic year 1998-99. Since there was no reply or response from the State Government, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.1883 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s application. The said writ petition (W.P.No.1883 of 2000) was allowed by this Court and by its order dated 10.07.2000, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Pursuant to the above said order of this Court, the Director of Medical Education deputed an inspection team to inspect the petitioner’s college vide his order dated 28.7.2000, and report about the availability of infrastructure facility to conduct B.Sc., (Nursing) course. An inspection was made on 9.9.2000, and a report about the availability of infrastructure was also submitted. Thereafter the Director of Medical Education by his letter dated 21.9.2000 addressed to the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem called for some particulars regarding land break up with building plan for B.Pharmacy, Physiotherapy College, clinical tie-up, details about free beds for poor patients, details regarding Men’s hostel, solvency certificate for Rs.30 lakhs, land details of ‘College of Nursing’ for B.Sc., course, etc. The petitioner replied by its letter dated 13.10.2000 clarifying all the particulars mentioned in the letter of the Director of Medical Education dated 21.9.2000. 5. Thereafter, the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem by his letter dated 30.11.2000 called for further additional particulars from the petitioner, and the petitioner by letter dated 13.12.2000 sent the additional particulars sought for to the Dean relating to provision of 50% free beds for poor patients, provision of boys hostel and approved plan for classrooms, library, office and principals room. The Director of Medical Education then by his letter dated 11.01.2001 called upon the petitioner to provide an endowment of Rs.10 lakhs, which was also complied with by the petitioner on 24.01.2001. The Director of Medical Education further by his letter dated 23.3.2001 called upon the petitioner to provide either (i) bank guarantee for Rs.30 lakhs or Solvency Certificate for the said amount (ii) details regarding tie-up arrangement with IRT PMCH and Lotus Apollo Hospitals. The same was complied with, and reply was sent by the petitioner on 12.4.2001. 6. The Director of Medical Education by his letter dated 26.11.2001 then sought from the petitioner a declaration that Lotus Hospitals has not given tie-up to any other Paramedical college, a declaration of the trust, management about the Physical facilities and payment of Rs.5,000/- for second inspection. These requests were also complied with by the petitioner on 06.12.2001. 7. The Director then by his letter dated 31.12.2001 addressed to the Dean, M.K.Government Medical College and Hospital, Salem called for certain particulars which was replied to by the petitioner on 4.2.2002. The said particulars are: - “ (1) Construction of separate hostel for B.Sc Nursing boys as per INC norms approved building plan was enclosed. (2) Solvency Certificate for Rs.30 lakhs from the Revenue Authority. (3) Declaration in bond paper from Lotus Apollo Hospitals that they have not given any tie-up facility to any one except petitioner.” 8. The State Government thereafter by letter dated 24.5.2002 rejected the petitioner’s application for NOC pointing out certain alleged deficiencies, which was replied to by the petitioner on 27.3.2003. The details are as follows: - The reply dated 27.3.2003 was submitted in person on 16.4.2003. 9. In paragraph 13 of the petitioner’s affidavit it stated that the above correspondence would show that the respondents are going on rejecting the ‘No Objection Certificate’ on matters which have been complied with, and calling for the same particulars again and again. It is further pertinent to note that every time a new deficiency is pointed out, the respondent had been complying with the same, but still the respondents had been delaying grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner to start B.Sc., (Nursing) course. It is further pertinent to note that every time a new deficiency is pointed out, the respondent had been complying with the same, but still the respondents had been delaying grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner to start B.Sc., (Nursing) course. Hence the petitioner was left with no other option but to file W.P.No.13077 of 2003 praying for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus or Writ of Direction to call for the records of the 1st respondent in letter no.39132/PME/2000-01 dated 24.5.2002 and quash the same, and direct the 1st respondent to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ to start B.Sc (Nursing) Course in “Nandha College of Nursing” Erode, for the academic year 2003-2004. 10. By his letter dated 03.10.2003 the Director of Medical Education constituted another inspection team to look into five alleged deficiencies cited in his letter dated 24.5.2002. The Petitioner by its letter dated 5.11.2002 replied by giving its compliance and the inspection team inspected the college on 7.11.2002 and was satisfied with the infrastructure, but the respondent failed to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’. Hence the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition being W.P.No.13077 of 2003. 11. In the judgment dated 24.2.2004 in the aforesaid writ petition, this court noted that after rejection of the petitioner’s application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ by order 24.5.2002, the petitioner had sent the compliance report on 27.3.2003, and thereafter on 5.11.2003 the petitioner sent a communication to the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and informed him that the defects pointed out during the last inspections have been duly rectified and submitted the application again for perusal and consideration. 12. In the judgment dated 24.2.2004, this Court observed: - “ In the impugned order dated 24.5.2002 five defects were pointed out. One of them is that the endowment of Rs.10 lakhs has not been deposited for the II year, for which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount has been deposited in the joint account with Director of Medical Education. The second defect pointed out is that separate hostel for boys was not provided, for which the petitioner has replied that a separate hostel for boys was provided which is as follows:- a. Ground Floor : 3692 Sq.ft. The second defect pointed out is that separate hostel for boys was not provided, for which the petitioner has replied that a separate hostel for boys was provided which is as follows:- a. Ground Floor : 3692 Sq.ft. b. First Floor : 3692 Sq.ft -------------- Total 7384 Sq.ft --------------- The third defect is that the petitioner has not constructed three more lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500 persons and an assembly or examination hall having capacity of 400 seats as per INC Norms. To this, the petitioner has replied as follows: - “ In respect of lecture theatre, it is submitted that we have constructed three more lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500 persons and an assembly or Examination Hall having capacity of 400 seats as per Indian Nursing Council Norms. The details are as shown under: - a. Ground Floor: 3 class rooms 660 x 3 = 1980 sq.ft. b. First Floor : 1 class room 660 sq.ft. It is submitted that one class room with an area of 660 sq.ft is to conduct classes for the first year B.Sc Nursing course. In addition to this, we have constructed three more lecture theatres (660 x 3= 1980 sq.ft) as per approved norms” The fourth defect was non production of bank guarantee for Rs.30,00,000/-. To this the petitioner has replied as follows: - “ Bank guarantee executed by Indian Overseas Bank, having its Head Quarters at 763, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and a branch at 33, 11th Main Road, Periyar Nagar, Erode to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) is produced (vide letter of Guarantee No.0834/03/2003-2004 issued by Indian Overseas Bank)” The last defect of land deed was not in favour of the petitioner; the petitioner has obtained from advocate and notary with regard to title. Learned Government Pleader has also produced the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inspection report has also been given by the inspection team. In fact, the same is available in the file. Thereafter, the Director of Technical Education had requested the petitioner to furnish photographs of the hostel, laboratories, buildings, and other infrastructure facilities for starting B.Sc (Nursing) Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the photographs have also been sent. It is difficult to appreciate the conduct of the respondents. In fact, the same is available in the file. Thereafter, the Director of Technical Education had requested the petitioner to furnish photographs of the hostel, laboratories, buildings, and other infrastructure facilities for starting B.Sc (Nursing) Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the photographs have also been sent. It is difficult to appreciate the conduct of the respondents. If the petitioner has not complied with the norms and has not provided the facilities as required or deposit the amount, it is open to the respondents to point out all these defects in one communication and the petitioner can rectify the defects. An inspection team, which is appointed by the respondents, has gone and given its report for its consideration to the Government. Thereafter, the respondent has asked the petitioner to produce some photographs. We do not know why no order has been passed by the respondents even though the petitioner has sent the photographs also. The respondents are not required to give a Certificate to the petitioner, if it does not satisfy the norms. At the same time, the respondents shall also not hold back on one flimsy ground or other, in case all the requirements have been complied with. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass orders within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.” 13. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment dated 24.02.2004 in W.P.No.13077 of 2003, the State Government again by order dated 26.03.2004 rejected the application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ on the following grounds: - “ (i) Completion Certificate of building for Hostel (Ground Floor 3692 sq.ft. + First Floor 3692 sq.feet = 7384 sq.ft) has not been produced. (ii) Completion Certificate of 3 more lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity of 500 persons and Assembly or Examination Hall having capacity of 400 seats have not been produced. The Trust has submitted plan showing 3 class rooms intended for Diploma in Nursing Course but not for B.Sc (Nursing) Course.” 14. In relation to the grounds for rejecting the petitioner’s application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ contained in the order dated 26.3.2004, the petitioner sent a reply dated 27.3.2004 stating as follows: - “ (a) Completion Certificate for Hostel Building (G+1), 4 lecturer theatre (Classroom), Auditorium and Examination hall not produced. In relation to the grounds for rejecting the petitioner’s application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ contained in the order dated 26.3.2004, the petitioner sent a reply dated 27.3.2004 stating as follows: - “ (a) Completion Certificate for Hostel Building (G+1), 4 lecturer theatre (Classroom), Auditorium and Examination hall not produced. Reply: (a)When the Inspection team has verified physically Hostel, 4 lecture theatres (class rooms), Auditorium & Examination Hall exclusively for B.Sc (Nursing) Course, along with approved building plan etc, insisting on Completion Certificate is unwarranted. In any case since you have asked for the same, I am enclosing the completion certificate. b. Plan indicates 3 class rooms intended for Diploma in Nursing Course, but not for B.Sc (Nursing) Course. Reply: Separate plan already given to you. One plan shows three storied building, (G+2) Main Building, with 4 lecturers theatres (Classrooms) and Laboratories for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, 2nd plan in the adjacent building shows auditorium for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, and the 3rd plan in another adjacent building shows Hostel Building (G+1) for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, and the fourth plan in another adjacent building shows 400 sq.ft examination hall for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course and the extra 3 class rooms in the said building is being used for Diploma in Nursing Course, which does not mean that there are no class rooms, i.e., Lecturers room for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course. Further the Inspection team having inspected and verified, how it can be stated that it is not provided for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course and it is provided only for Diploma. The rejection on said point is unwarranted and incorrect, the Inspection will reveal the same.” 15. The writ petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected its application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ on flimsy grounds despite three inspections. The writ petitioner has given endowment for Rs.20 lakhs and spent huge amount on infrastructure, and the Government is rejecting the writ petitioner’s application since 1997 arbitrarily. It is alleged that the inspection team has physically verified and inspected the hostel, 4 classrooms, Auditorium and Examination hall, etc for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course alongwith approved building plan, etc. The Inspection has revealed that there are four classrooms lecture theatres for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course. It is alleged that the inspection team has physically verified and inspected the hostel, 4 classrooms, Auditorium and Examination hall, etc for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course alongwith approved building plan, etc. The Inspection has revealed that there are four classrooms lecture theatres for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course. Hence to reject the application on the ground that the plan indicates 3 classrooms for Diploma in Nursing Course and not for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course is baseless and without application of mind. A separate plan has been produced by the writ petitioner showing four adjacent buildings for hostel, main building consisting of 4 lecture theatres for B.Sc., (Nursing) and Laboratories and another plan for Auditorium and further another plan for examination hall and the 3 rooms in the building for Diploma Course. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that ignoring all this the respondents are arbitrarily rejecting its application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ pointing out non-existent deficiencies. 16. It may be mentioned that in the order dated 24.2.2004, the learned single Judge observed “it is difficult to appreciate the conduct of the respondents. It was open to the respondents to point out all the defects in one communication for the petitioner to rectify.” This shows that the respondents are acting wholly arbitrarily and with a pre-determined mind to reject the application for ulterior motives. We agree with the learned single Judge that all the deficiencies, if any, should be pointed out in one letter, and it is not proper for the respondents to keep mentioning a fresh deficiency once the earlier deficiency pointed out has been removed. 17. The writ petitioner in the writ petition prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.03.2004, and for a direction to the respondents to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner to start 1st year B.Sc., (Nursing) Course. 18. The learned single Judge by his judgment dated 21.02.2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order, and further directed the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu) to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the writ petitioner within a period of 3 weeks. 19. 18. The learned single Judge by his judgment dated 21.02.2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order, and further directed the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu) to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the writ petitioner within a period of 3 weeks. 19. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, has relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Veerappa v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 , in which the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 24): - “ Further, it will be noticed that the High Court here, did not content itself with merely quashing the proceedings, it went further and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, “to grant to the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses in respect of which a joint application was made originally by the petitioner and Balasubramania Pillai and that in case the above buses have been condemned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such times as may be prescribed by the authorities.” 20. Relying on the above observation of the Supreme Court, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the learned single Judge could not have validly issued a direction to the first respondent to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’, but could only have directed the State Government to reconsider the matter in accordance with law expeditiously. 21. It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid case the High Court had directed the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore to grant permit to the petitioner. The Supreme Court was of the view that grant of permits is in the discretion of the Regional Transport Authority, and hence the High Court cannot perform the function of the Statutory Authority, but can only direct the authority concerned to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. 22. In Union of India v. S.B.Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 (vide paragraph 33), the Supreme Court observed: - “ It is, however, trite that ordinarily the Court will not exercise the power of the statutory authorities. It will at the first instance allow the statutory authorities to perform their own function and would not usurp the said jurisdiction itself.” 23. The above view was followed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood, (2004) 8 SCC 286 (vide paragraph 25). 24. It will at the first instance allow the statutory authorities to perform their own function and would not usurp the said jurisdiction itself.” 23. The above view was followed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood, (2004) 8 SCC 286 (vide paragraph 25). 24. In U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Mohd.Ismail, (1991) 3 SCC 239 , the Supreme Court observed: - (vide paragraph 12) “ The High Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer alternative job to drivers who are found to be medically unfit before dispensing with their services. The court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion in a given case. The court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. The Court could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. Whether alternative job is to be offered or not is a matter left to the discretion of the competent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the discretion in individual cases. The Court cannot command the Corporation to exercise discretion in a particular manner and in favour of a particular person. That would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.” 25. Similarly in State of U.P v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 131 , the Supreme Court observed that the High Court cannot issue a mandamus to the licensing authority to grant a license. The Supreme Court further observed: - “ The High Court was, of course, clearly in error in issuing a mandamus directing the District Magistrate to grant a licence. Where a statute confers power and casts a duty to perform any function before the power is exercised or the function is performed, the Court cannot in exercise of writ jurisdiction supplant the licensing authority and take upon itself the functions of the licensing authority. The High Court was hearing a writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of remand. The High Court could have quashed the order of remand if it was satisfied that the order suffers from an error apparent on the record. But there its jurisdiction would come to an end. The High Court was hearing a writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of remand. The High Court could have quashed the order of remand if it was satisfied that the order suffers from an error apparent on the record. But there its jurisdiction would come to an end. The High Court cannot then proceed to take over the functions of the licensing authority and direct the licensing authority by a mandamus to grant a licence.” 26. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we were at first inclined to set aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge in his impugned judgment to the first respondent to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the writ petitioner. However, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the respondent pointed out several decisions of the Supreme Court which have held that in exceptional circumstances, the High Court itself can perform the function of the statutory authority. 27. Thus in The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S.Jagannathan & Another, AIR 1987 SC 537 , the Supreme Court observed: - “ There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” 28. Similarly in Al-Karim Educational Trust & Another v. State of Bihar & Others, AIR 1996 SC 1469 , the Supreme Court observed: - “ In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction.” 29. In service matters, it is ordinarily for the disciplinary authority to award a punishment to an employee for a misconduct. Hence if the High Court sets aside an order of punishment of the disciplinary authority it should ordinarily remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order, but it should not itself substitute that order by an order of punishment of its own. However, in exceptional cases e.g. where there has been a great deal of delay or such a remand order would be futile, the High Court can itself award the punishment. 30. Thus in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court observed: (vide paragraph 28): - “ The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 31. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 31. Thus, in the above case, the Supreme Court has held that in exceptional cases, the High Court can itself do the function which is ordinarily to be performed by the concerned authority. 32. The above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, (2000) 3 SCC 450 , Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 , Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, (2003) 9 SCC 480 , Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another, (2003) 3 SCC 605 , etc. 33. In the present case, the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ has been delayed or rejected for the past seven years despite compliance by the writ petitioner on ten occasions of directives of the respondents to remove the alleged deficiencies, and inspection by the inspection teams on three occasions, and filing of three writ petitions on three occasions. We are satisfied that all the requirements of the State Government for establishing the Nursing College and grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ have been complied with. Hence we agree with the learned single Judge that it is not necessary for us to again remand the matter to the appellants to consider the grant of ‘No Objection Certification’ to the respondent/trust as that will only lead to further delay, and further arbitrariness. 34. The facts of this case show that though the writ petitioner had applied for ‘No Objection Certificate’ as far back as on 28.08.1997, its request has been repeatedly rejected arbitrarily, and for some ulterior motives. On six occasions the writ petitioner was told to make good the deficiency, but whenever it made good that deficiency, a fresh letter would be issued to it pointing out another deficiency which it had to comply. This has been repeatedly going on for a long time, which gives rise to an apprehension in our mind about the real motives of the respondents. This has been repeatedly going on for a long time, which gives rise to an apprehension in our mind about the real motives of the respondents. As many as three inspections have been done, and all the facilities have been provided for by the writ petitioner, but yet the ‘No Objection Certificate’ has not been granted to it. Hostel building, auditorium, lecture theatres, etc have all been constructed and reports about the completion of the construction have been furnished to the State Government. Hence it appears to us that the refusal to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ was really due to some ulterior motives or some demand by the respondents, which the writ petitioner was unable or unwilling to fulfil. There was no valid ground for rejecting the writ petitioner’s application for ‘No Objection Certificate’. The respondents have acted wholly arbitrarily and it is well settled that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 35. We are pained to make these observations, but considering the standards of public morality and the state of affairs prevailing in the country now-a-days, one cannot but make the comment that the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) refusal to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the writ petitioner/trust was for some ulterior motives, though what is this motive is best known to the appellants themselves. Suffice it to say that they have not acted fairly towards the writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal). 36. Thrice the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court, and this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. If we again remand the matter to the respondents, we apprehend that again for some reason its application will be rejected for some frivolous or untenable grounds, and the petitioner will be compelled to file yet another writ petition. Considering the background of the case, it is difficult to believe that the appellants will act fairly towards the writ petitioner, and hence we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge. 37. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed, and the appellants are directed to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ as prayed for to the writ petitioner within two weeks from to-day. No costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P is also dismissed.