JUDGMENT The petitioners who are holding, owning and possessing certain properties were served with certain notice issued under section 173 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Against the bill issued under section 173 of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections in accordance with section 173 of the Act. The respondents did not decide the objections filed by the present petitioners, therefore the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. According to the petitioners, when the statute requires the respondent-Corporation to give the notice of the liability incurred in default of payment and also the time within which an objection may be preferred as against such claim then the respondents could not sit tight over the objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners further submit that the respondents are duty bound to decide the objections filed by them. Learned Govt. Advocate, Shri Gupta submits that the State has nothing to do in the matter because the matter is between the petitioner and the respondents No. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the impugned notices, bills can be challenged in an appeal under section 184 of the Act and as the petitioners have not filed any appeal, the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the parties at length. Section 173 provides that a bi1l shall be presented for making certain demands. Every such bill shall specify the period for which and the property, occupation or thing in respect of which the sum is claimed. The respondents are required to give notice of the liability incurred in default of payment and the time within which an objection may be preferred as against such claim. If the sum, for which the bill is presented is not paid and no objection is preferred within fifteen days from the presentation of the bi1l, the Commissioner may serve upon the person to whom such bill has been presented a notice of demand in the form prescribed by the bye-laws. If such a notice of demand is issued under section 174 (1) of the Act any person aggrieved by the notice can prefer an appeal under section 184 of the Act. If such a notice of demand is issued under section 174 (1) of the Act any person aggrieved by the notice can prefer an appeal under section 184 of the Act. An appeal under section 184 of the Act can only be preferred against a notice of demand issued under sub-section (1) of section 174 and not against presentation of the bill making certain demands under section 173 of the Act. In the present case, even otherwise provisions of section 174 cannot be applied because the objections were already filed and in absence of decision of the objections, a demand could not be raised. If the objections are not filed within 15 days from the date of the presentation of the bi1l only then the Commissioner is entitled to serve a notice of demand and not otherwise. The jurisdiction under section 174 can be assumed only if the amount is not paid and no objection has been preferred. In the present case, a notice of demand could not be issued under section 174 because of the objections filed under section 173 of the Act. As an appeal cannot be preferred against the bi1l of demand the objection of the other side deserves to and is accordingly rejected. It is for the respondent-Corporation to hear and decide the objections. So long as the objections are not decided they would not be entitled to exercise the powers under section 174 of the Act. The respondents are free to give some date of hearing to the petitioners for hearing the objections filed by the petitioner/petitioners. If such a notice is issued by them, the petitioners may appear before the authorities and make their submissions in support of their objections. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed. No costs.