ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The case in hands is a classic example of harassment meted out to the petitioner-institution by the respondents for none of its fault. 2. The facts narrated briefly are that the petitioner – Saloni Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner - institution’) was having No Objection Certificate (for short ‘NOC’) for the purpose of starting B.Sc. Nursing Course, issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Science (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RUHS’) and by the State Government. 3. On account of an inspection conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, a ban was imposed by the State Government by order dated 28.08.2014 and accordingly the petitioner was directed not to give admission to the students. 4. In due course of time, the Anti Corruption Bureau filed negative Final Report, whereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/2015), wherein an interim order was passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.01.2015 and a direction was issued to the respondent - RUHS to enroll the students of the petitioner provisionally. 5. Petitioner’s aforesaid writ petition was subsequently allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 28.03.2017. 6. Regardless of above order, the respondent State and the RUHS did neither enroll the students of the petitioner nor did they permit the petitioner to grant admission, for which writ petitions came to be filed by the petitioner for every successive year viz. S.B. CWP Nos. 15046/2021, 13683/2022, 17991/2022 and 10376/2023. 7. All the aforementioned writ petitions were heard conjointly and allowed by order dated 18.10.2023 with the following directions: “9. It is also most pertinent to note that while the State was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner-institution by an interim order passed in one of the writ petitions, the State has taken a considered decision and has continued the NOC bypassing a conscious order, which results into a definite stand of the State that the petitioner-institution as on today has a valid NOC. The order dated 19.10.2023 for continuance of the valid NOC, which is said to be in consonance with the new policy dated 07.06.2022, is taken on record. 10. In view of above, the petitioner-institution is directed to deposit the complete due fee as undertaken. The order dated 19.10.2023 for continuance of the valid NOC, which is said to be in consonance with the new policy dated 07.06.2022, is taken on record. 10. In view of above, the petitioner-institution is directed to deposit the complete due fee as undertaken. The interim orders made allowing the petitioners/students in various sessions from 2019 to 2022-23 with scholarship, enrollments, revaluations & examinations benefits shall be allowed. The petitioner-Institution shall also be allowed to take the students for the academic sessions 2023-24, in accordance with the NOC granted by the State on 19.10.2023. 11. Thus, it is categorically held that as on today, the petitioner-institution has a complete legal status of NOC upto the Session of 2023-24 and until the NOC granted by the State vide order dated 19.10.2023 remains in currency. All the legal benefits shall be accordingly granted to the petitioner-institution as well as its students. 12. The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.” 8. During the course of hearing of those writ petitions, the respondent – RUHS stated that the petitioner – institution has to deposit affiliation fee amounting to Rs.24,39,000/- for the period interregnum, which the petitioner has indisputably paid on 06.11.2023. 9. In spite of the aforesaid, the respondent – RUHS did not enroll the petitioner for admission of students for the Session 2024-25, for which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, by way of filing the petition instant. 10. Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and not granting the annual affiliation for no reasons and rhymes. 11. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent – State could not point out any lapse or infirmity on the part of the petitioner. He, however, submitted that whatever is to be done, is to be done by the respondent – RUHS. 12. Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi, learned counsel for the respondent – RUHS submitted that since the State Government had granted provisional approval of admission to the petitioner-institution on 19.10.2023 in furtherance of the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10376/2023), which was for specific Session 2023-24. He submitted that as there is no fresh order, the respondent – RUHS has not aceeded to petitioner’s request for annual affiliation for the Session 2024-25. 13. He submitted that as there is no fresh order, the respondent – RUHS has not aceeded to petitioner’s request for annual affiliation for the Session 2024-25. 13. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had simply deposited a sum of Rs. 24,39,000/- and interest pendente lite and GST have not been paid. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. The fact that the NOC was granted by the State Government so also by the RUHS is not in dispute and the same is evident from the perusal of Annexure-1. Mayby, because of the case registered against the petitioner (by the Anti Corruption Bureau), the State Government had put a ban in the year 2014-15, but a perusal of the record clearly reveals that in a writ petition (being SBCWP No. 898/2015), filed by the petitioner, an interim order was passed, whereafter the writ petition was allowed, as negative Final Report had been filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau. 16. It is to be noted that the petitioner had to file writ petition every year and all those writ petitions came to be allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 18.10.2023. 17. This Court is unable to swallow the stand of the respondent – RUHS that the approval granted by the State was provisional and in absence of any specific direction of the State or this Court, annual affiliation for the academic Session 2024-25 cannot be granted. 18. So far as State is concerned, there is no objection or concern of the State so far as petitioner-institution is concerned. 19. According to this Court, the embargo which was put by the State Government was only on account of the fact that a case was registered against the petitioner by the Anti Corruption Bureau. 20. The petitioner was constrained to file one after another writ petitions for each year and all of them have been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.10.2023. 21. As a matter of fact, after the negative Final Report having been filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau and acceptance of petitioner’s writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/2015 by order dated 28.03.2017, the very existence of the order dated 28.08.2014 had come to an end or it had lost its efficacy. 22. 21. As a matter of fact, after the negative Final Report having been filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau and acceptance of petitioner’s writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/2015 by order dated 28.03.2017, the very existence of the order dated 28.08.2014 had come to an end or it had lost its efficacy. 22. This being the position, the respondent – RUHS could not consider petitioner’s affiliation to be provisional in nature. The stand of the respondent – RUHS is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. 23. So far as the demand of interest and GST raised by the respondent – RUHS is concerned, this Court finds it absolutely unsustainable and after thought. It is clearly an attempt to create an unnecessary hurdle. The amount of Rs. 24,39,000/- was disclosed by the none other than RUHS itself in their reply to the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15046/2021). Said amount has been deposited by the petitioner and now asking more amount in the name of interest is not justified, particularly when there is no provision of interest. 24. The plea of interest and GST components, which has been raised for the first time, is not only untenable, but also arbitrary. 25. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 26. The respondent – RUHS is directed to grant annual affiliation to the petitioner-institution not only for the current Session i.e. 2024-25, but also for ensuing Sessions so far the petitioner continues to be eligible. 27. In case, petitioner has deposited any extra amount, it shall be free to file a representation before the respondent - RUHS within a period of 15 days from today, which shall be appropriately considered by the Registrar of the respondent – RUHS and amount if has been paid in excess, shall be refunded or adjusted in future fee. 28. In case the petitioner violates any statutory provision or incurs any disqualification, the respondents shall be free to take action as deemed expedient, in accordance with law. 29. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.