1. This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth 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 LA. 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 Nyaypeeth 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 proposed 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establishment is not liable to make payment of any property tax, the action taken for recovery of property tax be withdrawn.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 Annexures 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 within these proceeding under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth 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 the matter of rejection of the amendment application no right and liability of the parties are determined finally and as the same is yet to be determined in the writ, therefore, appeal is not maintainable.
9. Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. The Full Bench of this Court in Paragraph 26 of the judgment rendered in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain and others (supra), has laid down the following principles:--
"26. From the aforesaid enunciation of law there remains no scintilla of doubt that interlocutory orders on certain circumstances, could be appealed against under the letters patent. Despite the fact they are interlocutory in nature they can be put into the compartment of judgment, if it affects the merits of the case between the parties by determining some rights or liabilities. There can be three categories of judgments: final judgment, preliminary judgment and intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment. If the order finally decides the question and directly affects the decision in the main case or an order, which decides the collateral issue or the question, which is not the subject matter of the main case or which determines the rights and obligation of the parties in a final way indubitably they are appealable."
10. If the aforesaid principles are applied in the present case, it would be seen that in the matter of rejecting the application for amendment, merits of the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the liability to pay property tax is not affected, the order is interlocutory in nature is not a final determination of any rights or liabilities of the parties with regard to the dispute, i.e., payment of property tax and, therefore, against such an interlocutory order appeal is not maintainable. Ingredients necessary to say that the determination is final in nature with regard to the rights and obligations as laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain and others (supra), are not available in the matter. That being so, we find much force in the objections raised by the learned Counsel for respondents, appeal is therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.
Writ Appeal dismissed.