1 2025:CGHC:12497-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 183 of 2025 Md. Iqbal S/o Md. Israil Aged About 44 Years Vice Sarpanch, Village Panchayat - Aara, R/o Village Aara Police Station Rajpur, District - Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional OfÏcer Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4. Ajjimuddin S/o Immamuddin Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Aara, Police Station And Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5. Upendra Singh S/o Puran Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Aara, Police Station And Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.18 10:35:08 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 .03.2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 525 of 2025 (Md. Iqbal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge dismiss the application for grant of interim relief in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the interim application of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 525 of 2025, but no date for final hearing has been fixed nor the State has been called upon to file any counter-afÏdavit. 4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 submit that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High 3 Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘Act of 2006’), which specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 that they have already filed the counter-afÏdavit in the matter. 5. Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 reads as follows: “2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction. - (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court. Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 6. A perusal of the above would go to show that no appeal shall lie before the Division Bench against an interlocutory order. 7. In that view of the matter, this appeal being not maintainable is accordingly dismissed. However, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose off the matter preferably within a period of three weeks the date of from production of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan