1. The present petition seeks review of final order dated 9.9.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.290/2016, which has been disposed of in following terms:-

“In view of the liberty prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant to approach the appellate authority against the demand notices dated 27.3.2016, we deem it appropriate to direct that in case the appellant files an appeal under section 184 of the Act before the appeal committee within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the appeal committee shall decide the appeal by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such appeal. The respondent Corporation is directed to open the premises of the appellant. However, the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to issue an order of attachment in respect of the property of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the order dated 21.7.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.”

2. The above reveals that on the prayer made by the appellant, the writ appeal while being disposed of, liberty was extended to the appellant to prefer an appeal under section 184 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, for brevity the 1956 Act, before appeal committee within a period of 10 days and with corresponding direction to the said Committee to decide the same by a speaking order.

3. The appellant is now before this Court seeking review that since the objection, R-2 preferred by the petitioner in response to the notice under section 174 of the 1956 Act had not been decided, grant of the liberty is futile in view of the statutory bar contained in section 184(2)(a) of the 1956 Act, which reads thus :-

“184. Appeals.-

(1) Appeals against any notice of demand issued under sub-section (1) of section 174 may be made to the appeal committee constituted under section 403 and in the manner prescribed therein.

Provided that the appeal shall not be entertained unless the sum due under section 174 is deposited in the Corporation and a copy of the receipt is enclosed with the appeal memo.

(2) No such appeal shall be heard had determined unless -

(a) a written objection has been made and determined in accordance with the provisions of this act; and

(b) the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him in the municipality office, and a receipt thereof has been filed with a memo of appeal.”

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the said objection of the petitioner to the notice dated 15.2.2016 was decided on 16.3.2016 and thus the respondents seek dismissal of the present review petition.

5. From bare perusal of the above said provisions contained in section 184 reveals that there are two restrictions to the entertainment, hearing and determination of the appeal. The first relates to the very entertainment of the appeal in the proviso to section 184(1) by prohibiting entertainment of the appeal in the absence of deposit of the sum due under section 174. The other restriction is on the hearing and determination of the appeal unless written objection has been made and determined in accordance with provisions of the Act 1956.

5.1 For ready reference and convenience section 174 is reproduced below:-

“174. If bill not paid within 15 days notice of demand to issue.-

(1) If the sum , for which a bill is presented as aforesaid, is not paid and no objection has been prefer within 15 days from the presentation of the bill, the Commissioner may, serve upon the person to whom such bill has been presented a notice demand in the form prescribed by byelaws.

(2) For every notice of demand a fee shall be charged at the rate specified in the byelaws and shall be payable by the said person, and the fee shall be included in the costs of recovery”

5.2 The making and determination of the written objection provided in sections 184(2)(a) does not in the considered opini