ORDER : This is a public interest litigation seeking to restrain the respondent No. 5 from occupying the premises, on the allegation that the respondent No. 5 has constructed a building on the government land. The writ petitioners prays for an order of injunction restraining the respondent No. 5 from occupying the building allegedly constructed on the government land. It is well settled principle that even if the petitioners have made out a prima-facie case, an order of injunction ought not to be issued in their favour unless they would suffer irreparable loss and injury without such an interim order. The interim order cannot be granted, unless we are satisfied that the balance of convenience and inconvenience is caused in favour of the writ petitioners and is against the respondent No. 5. In the case on hand, the petitioners would not suffer any injury, if, during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No. 5 takes possession of the house he has constructed. If the writ petitioners succeed in the writ petition, the respondent No. 5 would be evicted and the possession of the writ petitioners would not adversely affect any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. If, on the contrary, the writ petition fails and the respondent No. 5 is restrained by an order of injunction from utilizing the building that he has constructed, the inconvenience suffered by the respondent No. 5 would remain irremediable. Therefore, the application for interim relief stands rejected. There will be no order as to costs.