JUDGMENT 1. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. We had by our order dated 16th December, 2022 made query to petitioner. Paragraph 3 of said order is reproduced below. '3. We find impugned order says a private B.Ed. colleges stand banned by the Government and as such lease proposal in favour of petitioner stood dropped. Petitioner is to demonstrate on adjourned date that the lease proposal is still subsisting.' 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.6 [Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO)]. He points out from order dated 2nd April, 2018 made by the Tahsildar that the lease proposal in respect of petitioner had already been dropped on 29th March, 2018. It was dropped in Lease Case bearing no.24 of 2016, a separate one to the Alienation Case no.2 of 2018, wherein impugned order dated 3rd April, 2018 had been passed. 3. Mr. Palit, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of interveners and supports contention of IDCO. He also points out from impugned order that opinion for settlement in favour of IDCO had been given by the Tahsildar. 4. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. He reiterates, petitioner's lease case was dropped on order dated 29th March, 2018. 5. Petitioner does not have locus standi to challenge impugned order since, its Lease Case no.24 of 2016 stood dropped by order dated 29th March, 2018. Mr. Tripathy prays for interim protection to allow his client time to take steps for obtaining remedy. 6. No steps will be taken further to impugned order dated 3rd April, 2018 till 6th February, 2023. We make it clear that this direction is being made to enable petitioner to take steps for obtaining remedy and not by reason of any infirmity in impugned order. Our this direction will stand automatically vacated unless petitioner obtains interim measure in any proceeding to be initiated by it in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is disposed of.