Priority in hearing interlocutory applications was not mandatory where the prior order only granted liberty to seek such consideration.

The earlier appellate order did not mandate a particular sequence for deciding the appellant's interlocutory applications before the plan approval application. It only gave the appellant liberty to request the adjudicating authority to consider and dispose of those applications first. Since the record showed that the interlocutory applications had already been heard and orders reserved before the plan approval application was heard and reserved, no procedural infirmity was found in the adjudicating authority's conduct. The adjudicating authority was therefore held not to have erred, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority committed any error in reserving orders on the plan approval application before first deciding the appellant's interlocutory applications, in light of the earlier appellate order dated 23.04.2026.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order did not issue a mandatory direction to the adjudicating authority to decide the appellant's applications in any particular sequence. It only granted liberty to the appellant to bring that order to the notice of the adjudicating authority and request consideration and disposal of the interlocutory applications before the plan approval application was decided. The record showed that the appellant's applications had already been heard and orders reserved before the plan approval application was heard and reserved. On that basis, no infirmity was found in the adjudicating authority's course of action.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority did not err, and the appeal was dismissed.

---