Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the respondents are demanding payment of property tax, from the petitioner, without taking into consideration the relevant factors for the enhancement of the property tax, by way of revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the first respondent Corporation had issued an order, dated 24.09.1998, demanding the payment of property tax, from the petitioner, retrospectively, from the year 1993-94. As such, the order passed by the first respondent Corporation is arbitrary and illegal, especially, when no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth his case. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the demand notice had been issued, by the first respondent Corporation, on 07.03.2012, regarding the arrears of the property tax to be paid by the petitioner, including the current demand. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Corporation had submitted that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the first respondent, demanding payment of property tax or the revision of property tax, before the Taxation Appeal Tribunal concerned, as per the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, and the rules framed thereunder. However, the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the earlier proceedings of the first respondent, dated 24.09.1998, and the subsequent proceedings, issued by the first respondent, in the manner known to law. Therefore, the demand notice had been issued, by the first respondent Corporation, on 7.3.2012, informing the petitioner that, unless arrears of property tax is paid, by the petitioner, action would be initiated for recovering the same, in the manner to law. 5. He had further submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 01.03.1999, and the subsequent proceedings, are not maintainable. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is also liable to be dismissed, due to laches. 6. 5. He had further submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 01.03.1999, and the subsequent proceedings, are not maintainable. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is also liable to be dismissed, due to laches. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on perusal of the records available, this Court finds that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, praying for writ of declaration, is not maintainable, as the relief prayed for in the writ petition is omnibus in nature. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed, due to laches. Further, even though an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, the petitioner had not availed the same, as per the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, and the rules framed thereunder. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.