1. This writ appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question an order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.1175/2011 by which an interlocutory application filed in the writ petition being I.A. No.12350/2013 for amendment in the writ petition was dismissed.

2. As this is an appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents to the effect that a writ appeal is not maintainable, it is said that appeal is only maintainable against the final determination made in the writ petition, against an interlocutory order passed in a pending proceedings, a writ appeal is not maintainable. That being so we are propose to deal with the aforesaid preliminary objection first.

3. Before adverting to consider the same, the facts in nutshell may be taken note of. The petitioner claims to be a public sector undertaking having its work and establishment in Malajkhand District- Balaghat. It is stated that in the year 2005-06 the respondent No. 2 Municipal Council, Malajkhand, enhanced the municipal taxes and proposed to levy Property Tax in accordance to M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and in furtherance to the same a resolution was passed on 6.2.2006. The petitioner submitted self-assessment form in response to the same and thereafter, raised various objections in the matter of demand made. It was their case that as the petitioner’s establishment is not liable to make payment of any property tax, the action taken for recovery of property tax be withdrawn. A writ petition was filed for quashment of various proceedings initiated for recovery of taxes, while the matter was so pending an application I.A. No.12350/2013 was filed wherein the relief clause was proposed to be amended and challenge was proposed to be made to the public notice Annexure P/1 based on which the self assessment form Annexure P/3 was submitted by the petitioner.

4. The original relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition reads as under :-

“1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Annexure P-8, P-12 and P-17 and declare the self assessment statement (Annexure P/3) submitted by the petitioner is correct.

2. To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

5. By amending the writ petition, petitioner also wanted quashing of the public notice Annexure P/1. When the matter was taken up by learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge held that in pursuance to the public notice Annexure P/1 petitioner have already submitted their self assessment vide Annexure P/3 and have also called for a mandamus to accept their self assessment statement. That being so, learned single judge came to the conclusion that now a contrary relief for quashing the public notice cannot be issued once in furtherance to the public notice, self assessment was submitted, the prayer for amendment was therefore dismissed.

6. The question now before us is as to whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the application for amendment can be interfered with in these proceeding under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 or petitioner is required to wait till a final determination is made in the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for appellant argued that as the rights of the petitioner to pay property tax as per notice Annexure P/1 and his right to challenge the notice Annexure P/1 itself is decided by the impugned interlocutory order, in view of the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain and others v. State of M.P. and others 2007 (3) JLJ 187 petition is maintainable. Learned counsel referred to para 26 of the said judgment to canvass his contention.

8. Per contra counsel for respondents submits that in th