JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. 1. The premises involved is 18/1, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700019. The appellants are aggrieved by a letter of intimation dated 25th November, 2006 issued by the respondent corporation to them. It appears from the statement contained therein that there is due and owing by them on account of tax interest and penalty from the first quarter 1959-1960 to the fourth quarter 2005-2006, a substantial sum of money aggregating to about Rs. 75,02,089/- on the date of presentation of the writ application in this Court in 2006. 2. It is now much more than Rs. 10 crores. 3. The present writ application (WP No. 1231 of 2007) filed on or about 5th October, 2007 was kept pending in this Court for nearly eight years and finally heard out on 4th June, 2015. For all these eight years, the appellants have been able to resist realisation of the said tax interest and penalty by the respondent corporation. 4. A most worthless case has been sought to be made out by the appellants. The case is that they never received any notice for fixation or enhancement of valuation. Hence, they could not raise any objection to it. The assessment was made by the respondent corporation in violation of the principles of natural justice. The valuation made by them is excessive, without application of mind, on guess work. They were trying to unlawfully realise their claim by issuance of distress warrant under Section 220 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 5. The appellants asked for revocation of the letter of intimation and for stay of the distress warrant under Section 220 of the said Act. 6. We are in complete agreement with the view of the learned Judge that it is inconceivable that the appellants were not served with the orders of the hearing officer for the period commencing from 1st October, 1959. In fact, scrutiny of the letter of intimation will show that the rate per quarter has been very variable. For example, from the 2nd quarter 1982-1983 to the 2nd quarter 1983-1984 it was Rs. 5467/- per quarter where as from the 2nd quarter 1989-1990 to 1st quarter 1995-1996 it was Rs. 21686/. In the 1st quarter 1959-1960 the rate was Rs. 203/- whereas from the 2nd quarter 1975-1976 it was Rs. 181/-. 7. For example, from the 2nd quarter 1982-1983 to the 2nd quarter 1983-1984 it was Rs. 5467/- per quarter where as from the 2nd quarter 1989-1990 to 1st quarter 1995-1996 it was Rs. 21686/. In the 1st quarter 1959-1960 the rate was Rs. 203/- whereas from the 2nd quarter 1975-1976 it was Rs. 181/-. 7. From the above, there is every reason to believe that the proposed valuation and tax was sent by the respondent corporation to the appellants, adjudicated upon by the hearing officer and rate bills raised upon them for this entire period of time. Only when the outstanding exceeded all permissible limits did the respondent corporation resort to issuance of the letter of intimation. 8. We are also entirely in agreement with the learned Judge that there is an inordinate delay in filing of the writ application and that the appellants are disentitled to any relief. 9. However, we are in disagreement with a part of the order of the learned Judge setting aside the demand in respect of the claim for the 4th quarter 1999, 2nd quarter 2001, 1st quarter 2001-2002 to 4th quarter 2005-2006. Just because the respondent corporation handed over a copy of the order of the hearing officer did not mean that it was not served upon the appellants or the appellants did not have knowledge of it. 10. Instead, the demand in respect of the said period be kept in abeyance, if not already adjudicated upon in terms of the impugned order. The respondent corporation will ascertain whether these proposed valuations of the hearing officer were served upon the appellants. If they were served upon them and no steps had been taken by them to challenge the same the respondent corporation will immediately take steps to realise the dues. If it is found that these proposed valuations were not served then a chance should be given the appellants to contest the proposed valuation before the hearing officer. Thereafter the annual valuation should be made and the rate bills raised. If the same is not paid by the appellants within reasonable time without obtaining stay from a superior authority steps may be taken to realise the same. This part of this order shall be complied with by the respondent corporation by preparing a compliance report within three months from date. 11. If the same is not paid by the appellants within reasonable time without obtaining stay from a superior authority steps may be taken to realise the same. This part of this order shall be complied with by the respondent corporation by preparing a compliance report within three months from date. 11. Furthermore, we observe that the writ application ought to have been dismissed by the learned trial judge for the solitary reason that no steps had been taken by the appellants to restore the suit filed by them (T.S. 579 of 1985) in respect of the said cause of action, which had been dismissed for default. If upon dismissal of the suit for default another suit did not lie, it is inconceivable how a writ application was maintainable. The writ application was a sheer abuse of the process of the court. For all the above reasons we affirm the order of the learned Judge dated 4th June, 2015 with the modification stated above. 12. The appeal and application are dismissed. 13. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. I Agree.