ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. On behalf of the petitioner institution, this petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ against the authorities of respondents for the following relief : “1. That, the order Annexure P-1 dated 30.6.2015 passed by the respondent Board, kindly quashed. 2. That, the respondents kindly directed to not to reject the application filed by the petitioner for seeking the recognition of D.Ed. Course 2016-17 on the basis of order Annexure P-1. 3. That, the respondent Board kindly directed to grant NOC to the petitioner society for recognition of D. EI. Ed. Course session 2016-17. 4. That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered.” Petitioner's counsel, after taking us through the petition as well as annexed papers, by referring the order under challenge (Annexure P-1) dated 30.6.2015 issued by respondent No.1, said that the same was issued contrary to the existing position of the site. In addition, he said that the requisite building for the purpose of starting the alleged educational institution, is in possession of the petitioner institution. True it is, before sometime, some construction was being carried-out, but now the entire construction has been completed. In continuation, he said that by the aforesaid order, his application for issuing the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the year 2016-17 with respect to the alleged course of D. EI. Ed. was refused only on account of non-availability of sufficient building in possession of the petitioner institution. In addition, he said that as per his submission, the construction of the building has been completed and it may be inspected at any time by the authorities of respondents for issuing the requisite NOC to start the alleged course. In such premises, he prayed to dispose of this petition by extending liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for inspection of the building by the authorities of respondents, with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents, that on filing such application, considering the same, the fresh inspection of building be carried out and after such inspection, in accordance with the procedure, the requisite NOC be issued in favour of the petitioner institution. 3. 3. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 Shri Gaurav Mishra submits that he did not have any objection in disposing of this petition, with the aforesaid limited prayer, by extending the liberty to file fresh application in the Office of authorities of respondents, for issuing the NOC to start the alleged course, but, he also said that liberty be extended to respondents to issue such NOC in accordance with the rules and norms prescribed under the regulations. 4. The same argument was adopted by Shri Harish Dixit, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side, so also without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of, by extending liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in the office of authorities of respondents within 15 days from today, for fresh inspection for issuing the NOC to start the alleged course by the petitioner institution and pursuant to it, the authorities of respondents are directed that on filing such application, the same be considered and inspect the institution for the purpose of issuing the NOC and on such inspection, if the building and other infrastructure is according to the norms and regulations, then issue the NOC in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of 2014. Petition is disposed of, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.