ORAL ORDER

2. It is further submitted that petitioner has got a good case on merits and the fact situation does not warrant demolition of the alleged deviations as ordered by respondent no.2 and if given an opportunity, the petitioner would show the same before respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the balance of convenience lies with the petitioner and if an interim order is not granted by respondent no.1 against the order passed by respondent no.2 and if the alleged deviations are demolished, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. It is further submitted that after affording her an opportunity of hearing, if a decision is taken to remove the deviations, if any, petitioner is always willing to oblige the same.

4. Hence, the following:

(i) The respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioner till a suitable decision is taken by respondent no.1 upon the Appeal No.121/2025 filed by the petitioner or on the applications filed along with the appeal.

(iii)The petitioner shall not put up any a