JUDGMENT 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned revision in annual value of the impugned land and also the order dated 24.7.89, 7.7.93, also the order dated 20.7.93, the order dated 29.8.1996 and the impugned notice dated 10.4.1996. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner who Claims to be the sole owner of the premises No. 12E, Ballygunge Station Road, Calcutta that the general revaluation of the premises with effect from 2nd quarter, 1989-90 by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 as also the revision in the general revaluation of the said premises under Section 180 (2) (ii) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with effect from 2nd quarter of 1995-96 by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are bad. The petitioner herself on 22.9.89 received a special notice dated 24.7.1989 intimating the annual value of the said premises on the ground of revaluation. 3. It is alleged that without making any assessment as prayed an ex parte order was passed fixing the revaluation of the premises at Rs. 54,000/-. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 20.7.1993. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the manner in which the revaluation has been made viz. relying on the rental received by the petitioner for parking car in the shed in question is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. On 12.5.1996, the petitioner received from the respondent No. 4 another notice dated 10.4.1996 wherefrom it appears that the annual valuation of the said premises has been assessed at Rs. 93,960/- with effect from 2nd quarter, 1995-96 and such valuation has also been made on the basis of rise of rent since the last valuation. 5. The petitioner received a red card from the respondent No. 4 wherefrom it, appears that annual valuation of the said premises has been assessed at Rs. 93,960/- with effect from 2nd quarter of 1995-96, it is the further case of the petitioner that on 8.3.1999, the petitioner applied for certified copies of the said impugned order dated 20.7.1993 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 29.8.96 passed by the respondent No. 2 and on 7.4.99, the same were delivered to the petitioner. 6. 93,960/- with effect from 2nd quarter of 1995-96, it is the further case of the petitioner that on 8.3.1999, the petitioner applied for certified copies of the said impugned order dated 20.7.1993 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 29.8.96 passed by the respondent No. 2 and on 7.4.99, the same were delivered to the petitioner. 6. It is alleged by the petitioner that she is an old lady and has been suffering from various illness and she was not aware of the impugned orders dated 20.7.93 and 29.8.96 prior to March 1999 when she came to learn for the first time from her employee that the impugned orders were passed. As such there is no delay or latches, on the part of the petitioner in filing this writ petition. 7. Such revision of valuation has been challenged on the ground that such valuation is without jurisdiction and cannot be made on the basis of rent received by the petitioner for parking of cars in the shed in question. It is also contended that under Section 183 (ii) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 have no jurisdiction to revise such annual valuation. 8. After considering the respective submissions of the parties it appears to me that the present writ application suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay. Although it is sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the order under sub-section (3) of Section 188 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 after hearing of the objection, the order which is to be passed is to be communicated within 30 days and allegedly no such communication has been made, it appears from Annexure-C to the writ petition itself that the order passed on 20.7.93 by the Municipal Commissioner after hearing the objection of the petitioner under Section 188(2) of the said Act fixing the annual valuation of the land at Rs. 54,000/- was communicated to the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner received the copy of the same by endorsing the signature on 31.7.93. 9. It appears from Annexure-H to the writ petition that the order passed under Section 188(2) of the Act after hearing the objection of the petitioner on 29.8.1996 fixing the value of land at Rs. 93,960/- was communicated by the red card long ago. 9. It appears from Annexure-H to the writ petition that the order passed under Section 188(2) of the Act after hearing the objection of the petitioner on 29.8.1996 fixing the value of land at Rs. 93,960/- was communicated by the red card long ago. The fact that the petitioner received the red card is admitted in the writ petition itself. 10. It has been rightly contended by the learned Advocate for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation that under Section 188(3), it is provided that a copy of the said order shall be supplied in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the prescribed form under the relevant Taxing Regulation. It appears therefrom that the impugned orders were issued under the prescribed form which were communicated to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was fully aware of the aforesaid orders in 1993 and 1996 itself. No explanation has been offered why the same were not challenged at that stage. There is no reason, therefore, why the writ Court should entertain the writ petition challenging order after 6 years and 3 years after passing of the same. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed in limine. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.