Judgment :- (1). THE petitioners in this writ petition dated February 20th, 2008 are seeking a mandamus quashing the consolidated rate notice of demand dated november 4th, 2007 issued by the assessor-collector (north/south) of the corporation, and the letter dated December 18th, 2007 sent to the first petitioner by its deputy assessor-collector (south). By the notice of demand the corporation asked the assessees of the premises in question to pay property tax arrears for a large number of quarters falling between the first quarter of 1972 and the fourth quarter of 2005. By the letter dated December 18th, 2007 the deputy assessor supplied the requisite information in response to the first petitioners application dated July 13th, 2007 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (2). MR Ali, counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that revised annual value effective from the second quarter of 1989-90 determined by the hearing officer of the corporation was questioned by the petitioners by filling a writ petition in this court, and that during its pendency the corporation undertook periodical revision of the annual value for the subsequent periods, though it could not do so. His further submission is that when on receipt of the notice of demand the first petitioner submitted an appeal dated December 20th, 2007 under S.192 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 requesting the municipal commissioner to exercise his power for reviewing the annual values determined for the periods mentioned therein, without first disposing of such appeal, the notice of demand could not be issued. (3). THE questions for decision therefore are: (i) whether during pendency of the writ petition connected with determination of annual value effective from the second quarter of 1989-90 the corporation could proceed to revise the annual value for the subsequent periods; (ii) whether the petitioners had any right to submit any appeal under S. 192 against the notice of demand, and, if so, whether without first giving decision in that the authorities of the corporation are empowered to enforce the notice of demand; and (iii) whether the petitioners are entitled to approach the writ court for an order quashing the letter dated December 18th, 2007. (4). (4). MR Ali has take me through some orders made by the hearing officers of the corporation in the assessment proceedings initiated for determination of annual values effective from the second quarter of 1995-96 and the second quarter of 2001-02, and commented that after seeking reports from the representative of the corporation, and then without actually getting them, the hearing officers gave the final decisions. His submission is that the corporation should not have proceeded to revise the annual value for the subsequent periods especially when there cannot be any dispute that if the petitioners succeed in the pending case, then all subsequent revisions of the annual value would become meaningless. He, however, concedes that in the pending writ petition no interim order was made by this court restraining the corporation from revising the annual value for the subsequent periods. (5). AS a matter of fact the assessment proceedings were duly initiated, and the hearing officers made final orders in 2001 and 2005 determining the relevant annual values. Against the orders of the hearing officers remedy of the petitioners was appeals provided by S. 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. There is nothing to show that they lodged any appeal against any order of any hearing officer. It is apparent from the notice of demand that for a large number quarters starting from the first quarter of 1972 property tax payable for the premises was not paid. When the notice of demand was issued the first petitioner submitted an appeal describing it as one under S. 192, though an assessee has no right to submit any appeal with a view to invoking the power conferred on the municipal commissioner to amend the assessment book. (6). WHEN the statute did not confer any right on the first petitioner to submit an appeal or a representation invoking the power of the municipal commissioner, in the face of the notice of demand and evidently to avoid payment of the amount demanded, the petitioners were not at liberty to ask the municipal commissioner to exercise his power available under S. 192. There is nothing to show either that against the final orders made by the hearing officers from time to time determining the revised annual values for all the quarters falling in the period mentioned in the notice of demand, the petitioners ever preferred any appeal. Mr. There is nothing to show either that against the final orders made by the hearing officers from time to time determining the revised annual values for all the quarters falling in the period mentioned in the notice of demand, the petitioners ever preferred any appeal. Mr. Ali has, however, said that whenever annual value was revised and determined the petitioners brought the matter under challenge by initiating proceedings before this court. (7). WITH respect to the letter dated December 18th, 2007, I do not see how the petitioners can file a writ petition seeking an order quashing it. It was not an order or a decision given by the authority issuing it in terms of any provision of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. As a matter of fact, it was the reply of the competent authority of the corporation to the first petitioners application filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Such a communication as the impugned one, in my view, cannot be questioned by the persons seeking the information by initiating proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (8). FOR these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.