JUDGMENT : Surjit Singh, J. Petitioner is a Society, having building in village Binoula, with constructed area, measuring 41,069 square feet. Building has been constructed on a piece of land, measuring 4.3 acres. It has been raised for running courses, like General Nursing and Midwifery Course and B.Sc. Nursing Course. Petitioner applied for issuance of No Objection Certificate, for setting up a nursing institution in the building and to run GNM course and B.Sc. Nursing Course. No Objection Certificate was issued, vide letter, dated 4.8.2007, copy Annexure P-3. Issuance of NOC in petitioner's favour, was challenged by certain persons by filing a writ petition in this Court. State filed reply in that writ petition and during the course of hearing of that writ petition, statement was made that No Objection Certificates, issued to all the institutions for running nursing courses, will be recalled and fresh guidelines / criteria for grant of NOCs, would be issued. Writ petitions were disposed of, in view of the aforesaid statement. That led to the withdrawal of NOC, issued to the petitioner. 2. Thereafter new guidelines / criteria were laid down, vide notification, dated 7.6.2008, copy Annexure P-7. On 27.6.2008, an advertisement, copy Annexure P-8, appeared in a newspaper, inviting applications for Expression of Interest, for setting up nursing institutions to run GNM and B.Sc. Nursing Courses. One of such institutions was intended to be set up in the area of Bilaspur District, and the institution was to be attached with Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur and Primary Health Centres, Ghumarwin, Panjgain and Namhol. There were seven applicants for setting up nursing training institutes. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 were among those applicants. Inspection of the buildings, in which the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and other applicants, wanted to run courses was carried out on 27.9.2008. In the course of that inspection, it was found that the petitioner had a piece of land, measuring 4.3 acres, on which there stood a building, with constructed area, measuring 41,069 square feet. 3. Premises of respondent No. 4 and other applicants had also been inspected, on or around the same day. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent No. 4 were allowed to submit additional documents/ information, in support of its claim for issuance of NOC, up to 3.1.2009. Respondent No. 4 submitted additional documents/ information, after expiry of the aforesaid date. It appears that respondent No. 4 submitted documents around 21.1.2009. 4. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent No. 4 were allowed to submit additional documents/ information, in support of its claim for issuance of NOC, up to 3.1.2009. Respondent No. 4 submitted additional documents/ information, after expiry of the aforesaid date. It appears that respondent No. 4 submitted documents around 21.1.2009. 4. Re-inspection of the premises of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was carried out on 23.1.2009. Respondent No. 4 was reported to be in occupation of 8.30 acres land, and 72,000 square feet area, available for running the nursing institute. Matter was placed before Directorate Level Evaluation Committee and the said Committee, vide report Annexure R-1, recommended the grant of NOC, in favour of respondent No. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, NOC was issued in favour of respondent No. 4, by the Government, that is respondent No. 1, on 28.1.2009, vide Annexure P-17. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 to 3, in issuing NOC in favour of respondent No. 4. 5. Petitioner's plea is that respondent No. 4 was not in occupation of so much of area, as was shown in report, dated 23.1.2009, Annexure P-21. It is also petitioner's allegation that another institution, i.e. a school, is being run in the same premises of respondent No. 4, though new guidelines / criteria provide that preference would be given to the party, in whose premises no other institution exists. Also, it is alleged that though according to advertisement distance between the proposed institution and the hospital/ Primary Health Centres with which the proposed institution is to be attached, should not be more than 30 kms., premises of respondent No. 4 are at a longer distance than 30 kms, at least from one of such PHCs. It is also alleged that when date of submission of additional documents / information was 3.1.2009 and respondent No. 4 had not submitted any documents/ information within the stipulated period, it should not have been allowed to submit such documents / information on or around 21.1.2009. Documents submitted by respondent No. 4 are alleged to be manipulated. 6. Replies have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 (jointly) and on behalf of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5, that is, Indian Nursing Council, has also filed separate reply. Documents submitted by respondent No. 4 are alleged to be manipulated. 6. Replies have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 (jointly) and on behalf of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5, that is, Indian Nursing Council, has also filed separate reply. Respondent No. 4 has taken the plea that since the area of land available with it, as also the constructed area, are more, compared to the land area and the constructed area of the petitioner, it has rightly been granted NOC and permitted to run the GNM nursing course. Respondents 1 to 3 have also taken similar stand. It has been denied that premises, where the nursing courses are being run, are at a distance of more than 30 kms from three of the four government hospitals. The distance is stated to be a little more than 30 kms, from only one of the PHCs i.e. PHC, Namhol, which has only six beds. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. From the inspection report, dated 23.1.2009, copy Annexure P-21, it is clear that land area as also the built up area of respondent No. 4 is not compact. The built up area, which according to the report measures 78,612 square feet, comprises of 18 different buildings, situated at different places and not of one compact building or block of buildings, nor are these buildings situated on a single piece of land, meaning thereby that 8.3 acre area, shown in the report consists of separate parcels of land, located at different places and also in different villages. From the advertisement, Annexure P-8, as also the notification of guidelines/ criteria, Annexure R-1, it appears that land should consist of one piece and entire built up area should be on that land. In fact, the terminology used in the guidelines/ criteria is "land" and "a building", which implies that the entire area of land, should form one piece and the built up area should also be on that piece of land. That is not so, in the case of respondent No. 4. 9. In view of the above stated position, action of respondents 1 to 3, in granting NOC/ Essentiality Certificate in favour of respondent No. 4, cannot be upheld, the action being contrary to their own guidelines and criteria, contained in Annexure R-1. That is not so, in the case of respondent No. 4. 9. In view of the above stated position, action of respondents 1 to 3, in granting NOC/ Essentiality Certificate in favour of respondent No. 4, cannot be upheld, the action being contrary to their own guidelines and criteria, contained in Annexure R-1. Therefore, letter dated 28.1.2009, Annexure P-17, issuing Essentiality and Feasibility Certificate/ NOC to respondent No. 4, is quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to re-examine the entire matter, in the light of their own guidelines and criteria, prescribed vide Annexure R-1, and the observations made hereinabove. They shall take final decision within 15 days of production of a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary (Health) by the petitioner or respondent No. 4, or their Counsel and further admissions to GNM and B.Sc. Nursing Courses, shall not be allowed to be made in the institution of respondent No. 4, until final decision, in accordance with the aforesaid direction, is taken. 10. It has been pointed out that on the basis of quashed communication, Annexure P-17, 40 students were admitted to GNM Course last year. It is directed that quashing of Annexure P-17, shall not affect the students, who have already been admitted to the institution of respondent No. 4, for GNM Course and they will be allowed to complete their training course. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.