Interlocutory order bar on writ appeal: interim directions without finality are not maintainable under the Division Bench appeal provision.

A writ appeal does not lie against an interlocutory order lacking finality on the substantive reliefs in the writ petition. The Single Judge's direction to evaluate the answer paper was only an interim order; issues on valuation, addition of marks, and the legality of the evaluation remained pending. Applying the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the HC held that no appeal lies from such an interlocutory order. The writ appeal was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the parties to contest the merits before the Single Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ appeal lay against an interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge directing evaluation of the answer paper and whether the appeal was maintainable under the governing statute.

Analysis: The order under challenge was only an interim direction and did not finally ermine the substantive relief in the writ petition. The claim regarding valuation, addition of marks, legality of the evaluation, and related objections was still pending consideration before the Single Judge. Under the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, no appeal lies against an interlocutory order. The order therefore lacked the finality required for maintainability of a writ appeal.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the interim order failed at the threshold for want of appellate maintainability, leaving the parties free to contest the merits before the Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under the Division Bench appellate provision does not lie from an interlocutory order that lacks finality on the substantive reliefs in the writ petition.

---