Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has once again challenged in this petition show cause notice dated 16.10.96 (Annex.1) and also challenged the valuation report dated 20.5.96 (Annex.7) and the impugned order dated 22.5.98 (Annex.11). (2). Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the valuation report dated 20.5.96 (Annex.7) ought not to have been relied upon by the Authority and it should have been straight away discarded in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Prem Kumar Surana (1). He, therefore, submitted that the impugned notice (Annex-1), valuation report (Annex.7) and the impugned order dated 22.5.98 (Annex.11) be quashed and set aside. (3). Before dealing with the aforesaid submissions, I must state that earlier the petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.4472/97 challenging the impugned notice at Annex.1 contending that though the reply was filed, no decision was taken by the I.T.O. Sumerpur. That petition was disposed of by this Court (P.P. Naolekar, J.) on 9.1.97 (Annexure 9) by simply directing the I.T.O., Sumerpur to decide the matter expeditiously. Accordingly, on 22.5.98 the I.T.O., Sumerpur decided the mat- ter (Annex.11). (4). It is clear from the order of my learned brother Naolekar J. that no liberty was reserved to the petitioner to once again challenged the impugned notice, therefore, only on this short ground, this petition was required to be rejected. The Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prem Kumar Surana (supra) is not applicable on the facts of this case as the same was delivered after the regular appeal was decided. in this case, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel Shri Bhandawat for the respondent-Taxation Department, that it is an appealable order and the petitioner has to raise all the contentions in appeal before the appellate authority. The impugned order (Annex.11) is in the nature of an inter-locutary order. The said order came to passed in view of the directions issued by Naolekar, J. on 9.1.97 in SB Civil Writ Petition 4472/97 to decide the objections. In that view of the matter no petition would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the inter-locutory order. (5). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.