( 1 ) THE petitioners seek a direction on the respondent nos. I and 2. consider the application of the petitioner No. 1 dated 25-9-1995 for fixing a lumpsum amount in lieu of all or any of the taxes and in particular octroi to be paid by the petitioner No. 1 to the Panchayat and to desist fromcollecting any octroi until the decision is taken on that application. Similar other petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 8782 of 1995 to 8793 of 1995 were earlier filed and were heard and disposed of on 13-10-1995 by this Court. These petitions were dismissed as premature. The respondent-contractor was under Resolution No. 16 dated 7-7-1995 passed by the Gram Panchayat given contract to collect octroi. That Resolution was temporarily stayed by the District Development Officer on 10-10-1995 and in that order the District Development Officer had also directed that octroi should not be collected until further orders were made. It appears that thereafter on 13-10-1995 Regular Civil Suit No. 247 of 1995 was filed by the respondent contractor in the Mehsana Court of Civil Judge (S. D.) against the order of the District Development Officer. The petitioners have, therefore, sought to amend this petition by challenging the order made on 17-10-1995 by the Civil Judge (S. D.), mehsana on application Exh. 5 for interim relief whereby an ad-interim relief was granted staymg the operation of the order of the District Development Officer dated 10-10-1995. It was contended that as the suit was filed without serving the requisite notice under Sec. 270 (2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, the Civil Court could not have entertained the suit and granted ad-irzterinl relief in the matter. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihari Chowdharv and Anr. v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1043 which was in context of the provisions of Sec, 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court in terms held that it was a settled legal position that a suit to which a requirement of Sec. 80 of the c. P. C. is attracted cannot be validly instituted until the expiration of the period of two months next after the notice in writing has been served to the authorities concerned inthe manner prescribed and if filed before the expiry of the said period the suit has to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the same volume at page 38 there is a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and ors. (AIR 1984 SC 38) in which in paragraph 6 while dealing with the question as to the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the Civil Court which could have been challenged by way of appeal from order before the District Court, it was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with such orders passed by the subordinate Judge under Art. 227 of the Cdnstitution of India and the petition under Art, 227 of the constitution in such cases was wholly misconceived. Therefore, when it is open to the petitioners. if they at all feel aggrieved, to go before the concerned Court and raise all the contentions which they are now seeking to raise, to enable that court to take appropriate decision, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the challenge against an ad-interim relief order passed by the Civil Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as soon as an application is made for fixing lumpsum amount in lieu of property and other taxes it was incumbent upon the authorities to stop collection of octroi, This proposition was propounded on the strength of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat (Payment of lumpsum Contribution by Factories in lieu of Taxes) Rules, 1964 under which it was provided that on receipt of the application under Rule 3 the Panchayat shall stay recovery of its taxes from the occupier if the occupier has so desired and