ORDER : 1. These appeals filed by the University and the State are preferred against the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of dispute arising on account of non-issuance of NOC by the State and consequent non-affiliation of the Institutions which are imparting Nursing Education. 2. The writ petitioners before the Writ Court came with the grievance that the State is not granting NOC, which is an arbitrary action. The inspections are being delayed and because of such delayed inspections, the Institutions, even though they fulfill all the legal requirements for issuance of NOC, affiliation for the University are not being allowed to either increase their intake capacity of students or for starting new Nursing courses. 3. The University as well as the State were issued notices and reply was also filed. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order held that as the new session has not started, granted an interim protection which provisionally allowed the Institution to participate in the process of counseling and also directed the State to consider the issue of NOC. 4. The appeals were initially filed by the University. The interim order was passed by this Court in appeal Nos. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 174/2022, 213/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022. Thereafter, the appeals D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 402/2022, 403/2022, 404/2022, 406/2022, 405/2022 were also filed by the State assailing correctness of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the University would submit that irrespective of the writ petitioners’ grievance that their applications are either not being considered or inspections conducted belatedly and NOC is not being granted by the State, the fact remains that the Institutions-writ petitioners except Vinayaka Mission Medical did not submit application for grant of affiliation on or before the last date i.e. 31.05.2021. Therefore, those Institutions, which did not even prefer application for affiliation could not be granted interim relief because even their affiliation is not with the University. He would next submit that under the new scheme of law regulating grant of affiliation, unless State grants NOC, affiliation cannot be granted. It is also submitted that in any case, for one reason or the other, affiliation has not been granted, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in so far as educational session 2021-2022 is concerned. He would next submit that under the new scheme of law regulating grant of affiliation, unless State grants NOC, affiliation cannot be granted. It is also submitted that in any case, for one reason or the other, affiliation has not been granted, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in so far as educational session 2021-2022 is concerned. Therefore, passing the interim order for provisional participation in the counseling is illegal and in excess of jurisdiction of the Writ Court. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Shah pressing his appeals would submit that State has come out with the policy of not allowing mushroom growth of Nursing Institutions. He would submit that this policy decision taken by the State would not be taken any exception to. He would further submit that the inspections may have been carried out by the Nursing Council and submitted before the State, as long as the State remains firm on its policy not to allow mushroom growth of Nursing Institutions, no direction could be obtained against the State for issuance of NOC. He would submit that such direction given by interim relief eventually amounts to allowing the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioners would submit that the State’s decision to not issue NOC is arbitrary and is violative of fundamental rights of the writ-petitioners. He would submit that the regulatory laws are already in force with regard to grant of NOC only upon satisfaction that the Institutions, which are willing to open Nursing Colleges, fulfill required standards of infrastructure, faculty and other aspects. He would submit that once the legal requirements and restrictions to regulate opening of Nursing Institutions are provided by law, by an executive fiat in the name of unclosed policy, no denial could take place. As far as University objection is concerned, he would submit that the petitioners had applied for inspection since long but as a ban had been imposed by the State in the year 2016, no further steps were taken by the State Nursing Counsel. The ban was lifted in the year 2019. Thereafter, no new ban was imposed, yet there was delay in holding inspection and therefore, for that reason, the Institutions cannot be blamed. The ban was lifted in the year 2019. Thereafter, no new ban was imposed, yet there was delay in holding inspection and therefore, for that reason, the Institutions cannot be blamed. He would next submit that one of the main reason for the learned Single Judge to grant interim order was that the educational session 2021-2022 had not started till the date of passing of the interim order and even today the educational session for 2021-2022 has not started therefore, all other technical arguments did not find favour before the learned Single Judge and order of provisional nature has been passed to protect the interest of both the parties. He submits that orders granted by the learned Single Judge does not finally decide the issue because such interim order is of provisional nature only and ultimately if writ petitioners do not get any relief, the consequence would follow. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that they will not claim any equity on the ground that under the interim order they were provisionally allowed to participate in the counseling. They also submit that the learned Single Judge has made it clear that intimation regarding provisional status is required to be reflected by the petitioner-Institutions on their websites so that any one, who is desirous of getting admission, fully knows the status that it is in litigation and the induction for counseling is only provisional in nature. 9. As far as writ petitioner Vinayaka Mission Medical is concerned, though it had applied for grant of affiliation before the University prior to 31.05.2021, its application has been rejected on the ground that NOC has not been granted and that is how that petitioner also filed writ petition and was granted interim relief by the learned Single Judge. 10. We have perused the records and the orders passed at this present stage when the writ petitions are still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge. 11. The petitioners’ grievance is with regard to inaction on the part of the State to grant NOC. As per the records, we find that the petitioners had applied long back, sometime in the year 2015 for grant of NOC but since, in the year 2016, ban was imposed, the inspections were not carried out. The ban was lifted in the month of December, 2019. Therefore, the inspections were carried out by the Nursing Council. As per the records, we find that the petitioners had applied long back, sometime in the year 2015 for grant of NOC but since, in the year 2016, ban was imposed, the inspections were not carried out. The ban was lifted in the month of December, 2019. Therefore, the inspections were carried out by the Nursing Council. It is the case of the writ petitioners that even though upon inspections, the Institutions have been found fulfilling all the requirements of law for grant of NOC, the State is arbitrarily sitting over the matter and not granting NOC. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Shah strenuously urged before us that the State is competent to take a policy decision to discourage mushroom growth of Nursing Institutions. We find that after lifting the ban in the month of December, 2019, no order has been passed by the State much less any conscious policy decision that the ban is again required to be imposed in public interest. 13. The University’s stand that as NOC was not granted, therefore, no affiliation could be claimed and that even the affiliation application could not be filed within the stipulated period, we find that the learned Single Judge taking into consideration that educational session for 2021-2022 has not even commenced and counseling is in process, in order to strike balance between the parties, has passed the order of provisional nature. The order, if we may say so, is of provisional nature and should not be creating any equity in favour of the writ petitioners. We also notice that the learned Single Judge has made it clear that the writ petitioner-Institutions shall clearly state in its respective websites that the seats in their Institutions is being allowed for the purpose of counseling on provisional basis only. We intend to impose additional condition on the writ petitioners that the Institutions shall clearly inform any one who is willing to take admission that it is at their own peril as the order of the Court is of provisional nature. 14. The parties would be at liberty to apply for appropriate modification, if so needed, and in case such eventuality arises before the learned Single Judge, in addition to making prayer in the writ petition for early final hearing of the writ petition. 15. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed off accordingly.