ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. This Writ Appeal filed u/S. 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 assails following order of the writ Court:- "Reserved on: 31/12/2020 ORDER (06/01/2021) Rohit Arya, J: The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 1 removing the petitioner from the post of President of Municipality, Alirajpur in respect of her tenure between 2017-2022 on the ground of an irregularity in an auction during her tenure between 2012-2017 and also restrained her from contesting for any such post. Upon hearing, learned Sr. counsel and consideration of the nature of charges levelled and the impugned order, limited to the issue of two fold penalties imposed against the petitioner, issue notice to the respondents by ordinary as well as registered AD mode on payment of process fee within a period of three working days, returnable within four weeks on. No interim relief." 2. In brief, the case of appellant is that he was an elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad (Council), Alirajpur. During the previous tenure of the appellant the then Chief Municipal Officer committed a misconduct because of which the Directorate subjected him to disciplinary proceeding which ended with imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. In addition, the loss caused by him to the tune of Rupees Ten Lakh was directed to be recovered from him by order dated 27/5/2020. 3. The said incident which became subject matter of disciplinary proceeding against the then Chief Municipal Officer Shri Shailendra Sinha became reason for issuance of a show cause notice against the appellant by invoking Section 41-A of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short "Municipalities Act"). The appellant was again elected in the second term. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the said show cause notice. The State Government by order dated 23/12/2020 Annexure P/5 decided to remove the appellant from the post of President. 4. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. The appellant was again elected in the second term. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the said show cause notice. The State Government by order dated 23/12/2020 Annexure P/5 decided to remove the appellant from the post of President. 4. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel submits that a conjoint reading of the punishment order dated 27/5/2020 Annexure P/2 and the impugned order before Writ Court dated 23/12/2020 Annexure P/5 shows that; (i) the subject matter/incident relates to the previous term of appellant; (ii) CMO was held to be responsible for the misconduct; (iii) there was no allegation in the show cause notice that the then CMO in connivance with present appellant has committed the misconduct.; (iv) in absence of allegation levelled with accuracy and precision that appellant connived with the then CMO and jointly responsible for the misconduct, no case was made out to invoke Section 41-A of the Municipalities Act. In the factual matrix of this case, necessary ingredients for attracting Section 41-A are totally missing which is evident from the following judgments :- 5. In the matter of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 260 , Sharda Kailash Mittal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 319 and judgment of this Court reported in Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2019 (1) MPLJ 426 interference was made when Section 41-A was wrongly invoked. 6. It is strenuously contended that all these points were raised in support of prayer for interim relief and matter was heard and reserved on 31/12/2020. The impugned order was delivered on 6/1/2021, but no reasons are assigned as to why no case was made out for grant of interim relief. 7. The reference is made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 565 (Arvind Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P) to bolster the submission that present writ appeal is maintainable against the impugned order. 8. Learned Sr. Counsel has taken pains to contend that during the pendency of this Writ Appeal, an intervention application was filed by certain Counselors which was not entertained by this Court. Parallely, the government appointed one of such Counselor u/S. 37(2) of Municipalities Act to take care of the President's work. The government at any time may notify the election and fill up the post of President. Parallely, the government appointed one of such Counselor u/S. 37(2) of Municipalities Act to take care of the President's work. The government at any time may notify the election and fill up the post of President. Thus, declining the interim relief has a drastic effect and it amounts to declining the final relief. Heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deoraj Vs. State of MP (2004) 4 SCC 697. In nutshell it is argued that the interlocutory orders can be subject matter of appeal before the division bench if such order has an effect of either declining final relief or granting final relief. There is no absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the division bench. 9. Per contra, Shri Vivek Dalal, learned A.A.G urged that the impugned order was passed by writ court on 6/1/2021 by making it returnable within four weeks. The period of four weeks is already over and government wish to file reply on merit within seven/ten days. Shri Dalal submits that the Gwalior Bench in WA No. 261/2017 (Nagar Palika Parishad Dabra Vs. Smt. Satyaprakashi Parsedia) decided on 26/5/2017 opined that an interim order staying removal of appellant from the office of President, Municipal Council, Dabra amounts to giving him final relief. It is opined by division bench that the interim order therein satisfies the colour and character of a final order and hence the impugned order of stay was set aside. Thus, this Writ Appeal is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. The government will promptly file reply before writ court and the writ court may be directed to decide the matter expeditiously. He apprised the Court that as on date, no notification declining election for the post of President is issued. 10. Faced with this, Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel submits that order of Gwalior Bench in the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dabra (supra) is per incuriam in nature. Reference is made to Chapter IV Rule 8 of the High Court Rules to bolster the submission that it is a fit case where matter may be referred for constitution of larger/full bench. 11. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for parties. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 13. Reference is made to Chapter IV Rule 8 of the High Court Rules to bolster the submission that it is a fit case where matter may be referred for constitution of larger/full bench. 11. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for parties. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 13. In view of rival contentions advanced at the bar, we deem it proper to first deal with the question of maintainability of this writ appeal filed against the impugned order dated 06/01/2021, whereby although other side was put to notice, but interim relief was rejected. 14. The Full Bench of this Court in Arvind Kumar Jain (supra) has drawn the curtains on this issue and made it clear in what circumstances a writ appeal can be entertained against an interlocutory order. It was poignantly held that as a rule of thumb, it cannot be said that Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 creates any absolute bar to prefer an appeal before the Division bench against an interlocutory order. The appeal can be preferred and entertained against an interlocutory order depending upon nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. In view of this Full Bench decision, if declining of interim relief deprives the appellant from final relief, writ appeal is certainly maintainable against an interlocutory order. However, in our opinion, at this juncture, it cannot be said that rejection of interim prayer by learned Single Judge has resulted into such drastic effect of declining the main relief itself. The councilor although is appointed under Section 37(2) of Municipalities Act as a stop gap arrangement to look after the routine work of the council, it has not created any substantive right in his favour nor he has substituted the appellant as President. Indisputably, as on date, no election for the post of President of Municipality, Alirajpur is declared. 16. In the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla (delivered by one of us), the President was declared as disqualified to hold the post of President by invoking Section 41A of the Municipalities Act. In absence of any interim protection, the Government notified the new election for the post in question. A day before the date of election matter of Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra) was decided by the Court. In absence of any interim protection, the Government notified the new election for the post in question. A day before the date of election matter of Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra) was decided by the Court. Thus, before his relief could be frustrated, the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla was finally heard and decided by the Court. If the same course is adopted, in our opinion, this will meet the ends of justice. Pertinently, Shri Dalal, learned AAG has expressed his willingness to file the reply of writ petition on merits within 7/10 days and readiness to argue the matter finally. 17. Putting it differently, in our opinion, the decline of interim relief by impugned order does not have any effect of declining the final relief. Thus, we are only inclined to direct the State Govt. to file the reply of writ petition on or before 19/02/2021. 18. The Registry is directed to list this writ petition before the appropriate Bench in the week commencing 22/02/2021. The parties shall argue the matter finally on the next date. 19. With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ appeal is disposed of.