Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioner in this writ petition dated December 19th, 2007 is questioning the notice of demand dated October 24th, 2005 issued by the Assessor Collector (North/South) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The notice was issued demanding the consolidated rate payable for the premises mentioned in the notice. In terms of the notice the demanded amount, Rs.38,06,037/-, was to be paid by November 23rd, 2005. The question is whether the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the notice of demand by taking out a writ petition after more than two years from the date the notice was issued. Mr. Datta, counsel for the petitioner, argues this. In view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to take the benefit of a waiver scheme floated by the corporation, there was absolutely no scope to demand any rates and taxes payable for the premises for any period prior to November 30th, 2004, when the application seeking waiver benefit was submitted. Since the waiver scheme benefit was granted and the total amount was duly paid, the corporation was not entitled to demand any rates and taxes for the period for which the notice of demand was issued. No assessment proceedings were duly initiated, no notice of any proceedings was served, and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his objection in terms of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The order of the hearing officer, if any, was not communicated, and hence there was no scope to prefer an appeal under s.189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Asking the authorities of the corporation to arrange for re-hearing, the petitioner made representations, but they failed to yield any result. This compelled the petitioner to take out the present writ petition. Mr. Das Adhikari, counsel for the corporation, submits that the petitioner had received the hearing notice issued under S.184, and thereupon submitted his objection dated June 3rd, 2004 to the proposed upward revision of annual valuation effective from the 3rd quarter of 2001-02. He says that the petitioner authorized his representative to participate in the hearing conducted by the hearing officer. Das Adhikari, counsel for the corporation, submits that the petitioner had received the hearing notice issued under S.184, and thereupon submitted his objection dated June 3rd, 2004 to the proposed upward revision of annual valuation effective from the 3rd quarter of 2001-02. He says that the petitioner authorized his representative to participate in the hearing conducted by the hearing officer. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no reason to permit the petitioner to question the notice of demand dated October 24th, 2005 by taking out this grossly belated writ petition dated December 19th, 2007. Against the order of the hearing officer his remedy, if any, was by way of an appeal, in terms of the provisions in s.189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Even if it is assumed, as contended by Mr Datta, that the time to file appeal has not yet expired, since according to the petitioner order of the hearing officer has not yet been communicated to him, I am of the view that, on the facts, the petitioner should not be permitted to approach the writ court asking it to re-open a matter that was concluded by the hearing officer sometime before October 24th, 2005. From his representations annexed to the writ petition, I find that the petitioner wanted only re-hearing of the matter by the hearing officer. Mr. Das Adhikari has rightly said that there was no scope for that, though, if aggrieved, the petitioner was free to move the appellate forum. If the order of the hearing officer was not supplied to him, nothing ever prevented him from calling upon the corporation to supply that. He rather went on making representations to the authorities of the corporation seeking re-hearing of the case by the hearing officer. He was also seeking re-hearing for a few other quarters. It seems to me that by filing this writ petition what he actually wants is to question the order of the hearing officer for which he did not take appropriate steps at the relevant point of time. By this, I do not say that if he is entitled to prefer appeal even today, he will not be entitled to do that. For these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs. By this, I do not say that if he is entitled to prefer appeal even today, he will not be entitled to do that. For these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs. Copies of the documents produced by Mr. Das Adhikari shall be kept in the records of the case.