JUDGMENT 1. - An order dated 6.11.2000 (Annexure 5) passed by the District Collector, Sikar, was challenged in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that writ petition was admitted on 4.12.2000 and on that day, in the stay application, an exparte ad interim order was passed staying the operation of the order dated 6.11.2000 which was impugned in this appeal. It has also been submitted before us that this ad interim order was continued later on and ultimately, on 16.2.2001, the order was confirmed as none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. 2. Thereafter, an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India came up before the learned Single Judge who passed an order on 13.9.2001, whereby the exparte ad interim order was vacated and the stay application was dismissed. 3. So far as the maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is concerned, the learned counsel has placed before us an order dated 15.9.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) (Defect) No. 2463/2001 (K.K. Distilleries Private Limited v. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan Udaipur & Anr.) , wherein the case of the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Union of India and another reported in (2001) 2 SCC 588 ) has been referred to on the question that an interlocutory order which is a final determination affecting valuable rights and obligations of the parties is a 'judgment', and the defects pointed out by the office were waived at that stage. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the order which is impugned in the writ petition, is only an order constituting a committee in pursuance of the directions dated 31.10.2000 of the Deputy Secretary, Devasthan, Wakf and Soldier Welfare Department, Jaipur. The District Collector has appointed a committee to get the charge over the maintenance of accounts, offerings etc. in the temple of Khatu Shyamji, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar. If this order was stayed by this Court after admitting the writ petition and the same has been vacated by the learned Single Judge while passing the orders in an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India,, it cannot be said that such order determines the rights of the parties finally. 5. If this order was stayed by this Court after admitting the writ petition and the same has been vacated by the learned Single Judge while passing the orders in an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India,, it cannot be said that such order determines the rights of the parties finally. 5. In our opinion, the order impugned in this appeal, i.e., order dated 13.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge does not amount to a judgment against which a Letter Patent Appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, can be held to be maintainable. We therefore, have no hesitation in holding that this appeal is not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed. 6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. 7. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel is concerned that the stay order had been confirmed after notice to both the sides on 4.12.2000 and yet it was vacated on the application under Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India, we find from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that no such grievance was raised before the learned Single Judge. It will be-open for the appellant to move appropriate application before the learned Single Judge, if he so chooses.Appeal dismissed with likely to appellant to make appropriate application. *******