Judgment : The Court: The petitioners in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated February 28, 2013 are alleging that the authority concerned of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) has not taken steps concerning mutation on the basis of their lawyer’s letter, a copy whereof is at p.81. Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners purchasing the property wanted to give a statutory notice for mutation, but that the department concerned of KMC refused to receive the notice stating that unless document showing payment of up-to-date tax was produced, the application would not be entertained. The lawyer’s notice was submitted on October 10, 2010. Admittedly, the petitioners incurring a statutory obligation to give notice of transfer of the property in question within the period mentioned in sub-s.(1) of s.183 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 did not give the notice. The notice was to be given in form and the relevant rules prescribed the form. The lawyer’s notice was an informal application on behalf of the petitioners. It could not be a substitute for the statutory notice. If the petitioners were not unable to produce document showing payment of up-to-date tax, then they could submit necessary letter explaining the situation with the statutory notice. They did not do that. On these facts, I am unable to accept the allegation of inaction. For these reasons, I dismiss the WP. Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioners from giving a statutory notice under s.183 with letter explaining why they are unable to produce document showing payment of up-to-date tax. No costs.