Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) In view of the order proposed to be passed it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no.4, the complainant. Respondent nos.1 to 3 are represented by learned Standing Counsel and respondent no.5 is represented by Sri D. D. Chauhan, Advocate.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) Respondent no.4 filed a complaint for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioners. The Collector Kaushambi vide order dated 29.09.2010 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. Against the same petitioners filed a revision. The Additional Commissioner had admitted the revision, summoned the record of the court below but rejected the application for stay, vide order dated 24.12.2010. It is against the said order that the present writ petition has been filed.;