JUDGMENT 1. These petitions are disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, to maintain clarity, the facts of CWP No. 1204/2008 are being referred. 3. The petitioner has assailed the issuance of Annexure P-10 dated 16.5.2008 whereby the respondent-State has withdrawn the feasibility certificate/NOC granted in favour of the petitioner-institution to run the nurses classes. 4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that in sequel to inspection carried on 22.6.2006, the feasibility and essentiality certification/provisional NOC was issued in favour of the petitioner-institution on 9.2.2007. The permission was accorded to start GNM/ANM courses in private institutions in the State of Himachal Pradesh on 4.8.2007. The institution took up the matter of affiliation with Indian Nursing Council. The institution was directed to submit the requisite documents vide communication dated 30.7.2007. The counseling for ANM courses was fixed by the State between 26.11.2007 to 28.11.2007. One of the institutions i.e. Northern International Education and Research Centre approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1504/2007. All the institutions in whose favour NOCs were granted were impleaded as parties in CWP No. 1504/2007, including the petitioner-institution. The Court by way of interim order stayed the counseling and admission to the nursing institution vide Annexure R-1 dated 21.11.2007. The respondent-State filed the supplementary affidavit on 31.3.2008 in CWP No. 1504/2007 (Annexure P-7). Consequently, as per para 7 of the supplementary affidavit, following decision was taken: “7. That based upon the above factual position, the Government/Respondent State has decided that:- (a) All ‘No Objection Certificates’/provisional permission to start classes be withdrawn forthwith. (b) The bank Guarantee deposited by the respective institution be returned/remitted forthwith. (c) The existing policy specifying norms is inadequate and there is a need for improvement in the policy. As such a new policy needs to be framed in accordance with Indian Nursing Council Norms and keeping in view availability of hospital attachment facility. (d) Immediately after formulation of new policy, fresh Expression of interest shall be invited. (c) The existing policy specifying norms is inadequate and there is a need for improvement in the policy. As such a new policy needs to be framed in accordance with Indian Nursing Council Norms and keeping in view availability of hospital attachment facility. (d) Immediately after formulation of new policy, fresh Expression of interest shall be invited. (e) The institutions already inspected by H.P. Nursing Council will not have to pay inspection fees again in case they apply in response to fresh Expression of interest.” Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. We hope and trust that the State will take decision in the matters, keeping in view the academic session which is to start in July, 2008. Pending applications shall stand dismissed.” 5. In sequel to the supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2008, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 4.4.2008. The State Government pursuant to supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2008 issued a letter dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-10) whereby the feasibility and essentiality certificate/NOC and provisional permission to start classes granted to the petitioner-institution was withdrawn with immediate effect. The State Government has proposed framework for setting up Nursing Colleges/Schools vide Annexure P 11. The petitioners and similarly situate institutions also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the issuance of Annexure P-10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.5.2008 dismissed the same with the observation that the dismissal of petition shall not in any manner preclude the petitioners from challenging the decision of the Government in the concerned Court. It is in these circumstances the present petition has been filed. 6. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioners have not been issued any show cause notice before the issuance of impugned order Annexure P-10 dated 16.5.2008. 7. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General has supported the issuance of order-dated 16.5.2008. According to him, Annexure P-10 has been issued after the decision reflected in the supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2008. In other words, his submission is that no notices were required to be issued to the petitioners in view of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2008 and moreover the petitioner and similarly situate institutions were heard before the issuance of order dated 4.4.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1504/2007. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 9. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 9. It is true that the premises of the petitioner-institute were inspected and the report was furnished by the Committee on 22.6.2006. The feasibility and essentiality certificate/NOC was issued in favour of the petitioner-institution on 9.2.2007. The provisional permission was granted on 4.8.2007. However, when this Court was seized of the matter i.e. CWP No. 1504/2007, the respondent-State has filed the supplementary affidavit on 31.3.2008. The decision has already been reproduced in verbatim in the opening part of the judgment. It is in these circumstances that the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 was issued. The petitioners and similarly situated institutions were before the Court and heard at the time of the disposal of the CWP No. 1504/2007 on 4.4.2008. The State Government has also proposed a new policy for regulating Nursing Classes vide Annexure P-11. In such like cases where the parties are heard by the Court before passing the judgment/order, they cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the principles of natural justice has not been followed. They were aware of the consequences, which were bound to follow on the basis of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2008. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the parties were not required to be heard separately. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in any straightjacket formula. The applicability of the principles of natural justice varies from one fact situation to another. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs.