ORDER 1. By filing this Writ under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged one interim order dated 4.10.2001 (Annexure D) passed by Competent Authority, constituted under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam in an election petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the petitioner. 2. It appears that respondents No.1 and 2 have filed an election petition against the petitioner under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam challenging the election of the petitioner. It is in these proceedings, present interim impugned order is passed by the Competent Authority. It is against this interim order, the present petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. Heard Shri Bhagwat on the question of admission. 4. Having heard the L/c for the petitioner at length and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the writ worth admitting it. 5. In fact, no writ lies as such against any interim order passed by an authority in a pending case. Though there is no bar as such contained in any Act or in the Constitution about its maintainability but judicial pronouncements have taken consistent view that no interference is called for in the writ filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against an interim order passed in any pending judicial proceedings. It is only if the Court is of the view that though the order is couched in an interim nature but it is per se without jurisdiction or/and dehors to the provisions of any of the Articles of the Constitution or contrary to any of the provisions of the Act in which proceedings are filed or if it decides the rights of the parties finally, the Court may consider to entertain the writ with a view to find out whether any case for interference is made out. 6. There is yet one more reason as to why at the stage of interim order, the Court may decline to interfere. The reason is that when the final order is passed in the proceedings which results in termination of the lis one way or other on merits, the aggrieved has always got a right to raise all the points arising out of the impugned final orders including even the interim order which was passed against an aggrieved person in pending proceedings. The reason is that when the final order is passed in the proceedings which results in termination of the lis one way or other on merits, the aggrieved has always got a right to raise all the points arising out of the impugned final orders including even the interim order which was passed against an aggrieved person in pending proceedings. At times, it may also happen that though the interim order is against one party but ultimately when the final order is passed it goes in his favour. In such eventualities, there arise no occasion for such person to even challenge that interim order because the ultimate result has gone in his favour. 7. Keeping this broad approach in mind which even does not cause any prejudice to any of the parties, if I examine the facts of this case and the impugned order, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to examine the legality of the impugned order and keep it open for examination. If occasion so arises when final order is passed and matter reaches to this Court at petitioners instances in writ. The petitioner will then be always at liberty to raise the issue. 8. One of the submissions of the L/c for the petitioner though it has no substance but it needs to be dealt with. His submission was that once this Court issues show cause, the matter cannot be decided unless all the parties are served and returns are filed by the respondents. Since in this case, according to L/c some of the parties are yet to be served and hence this Court should not hear the petition on any issue. 9. I do not agree to the line of submissions made by the L/c for the petitioner. This Court can always hear the petition on the question of admission because for admitting the petition the matter lies between the petitioner and the Court. Once the writ is admitted for final hearing then the same has to be decided bi-party on merits. In the present case, this stage did not arise because, the petition was not admitted for final hearing and it was only at its initial stage of show cause. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed in limine.