The Supreme Court on Wednesday queried whether it can pass an omnibus order in a public interest litigation and, thereby, prevent Uttar Pradesh State authorities from acting against illegal buildings and constructions..A bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha posed the question to Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind which has challenged the recent demolition of houses and other buildings carried out by Uttar Pradesh authorities in Prayagraj."We all know rule of law has to be followed. But with omnibus order won't we prevent authorities from taking action against illegal encroachments," the Court asked Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave who was appearing for Jamiat."PIL is only remedy here. Where else will the poor people (whose houses have been demolished) go," Dave responded.Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had moved the top court challenging the recent demolition of houses of those who had allegedly participated in protests against BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, after she had made remarks against Prophet Muhammad during a television debate, which sparked an international furore.The plea was filed through advocate Kabir Dixit in an already-pending case before the top court.The UP government in its response had stated that the Prayagraj demolitions were carried out by Local Development Authority which is an autonomous body from the State government and was a part of their endeavour to free the city of illegal and unauthorised constructions.Specifically regarding the demolition of house of Javed Mohammed, father of Afreen Fatima, the State had submitted that the construction was in "violation of Prayagraj Development Authority rules" and that proceedings were initiated much "earlier than the riots" which took place after the remark on the Prophet by suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma.Jamiat by cherry picking this demolition has attempted to give mala fide colour to a lawful action, it was contended.None of the actual affected parties have approached the Court, it was further pointed out..When the matter was heard today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that taking part in riots doesn't give immunity from having illegal construction demolished.Dushyant Dave responded by stating that the authorities have picking and choosing action against one particular community.Senior Counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Uttra Pradesh State authorities said that the argument by the petitioners is "wobbly"."Can the court pass an order that his house cannot be demolished because he is an accused in another case," Salve asked..The Court eventually proceeded to list the case and all connected matters for further consideration on August 10. "All connected matters be listed on August 10. Pleadings be completed by August 8," the Court directed.