SADHU RAM RUIDAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Goswami for the petitioner and Mr. Sen, learned senior Standing Counsel for the State and we have also gone through the impugned order and have examined the statement and averments made in the application made before the learned Tribunal. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal has not fallen in error in not entertaining the petitioner's application though the petitioner has stated in the petition that order impugned has been passed without serving any notice and defying the order passed by the learned Sessions judge concerned.

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Goswami, learned Tribunal ought to have entertained the application having regard to the facts and circumstances made out in the application. Mr. Sen has drawn our attention to section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy tribunal Act, 1997 which is quoted as under: "10. Application to Tribunal.-

(3.) IT says that the words in the negative, being sub-section 3, makes it clear that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to admit any application unless the situation mentioned in the aforesaid sub-section are satisfied. Admittedly, in this case, the applicant has not exhausted all the remedial measures even though admittedly, the right of appeal is provided in the statute itself. He further submits that no case has been made out that remedial measure available under the. provision of the act is not adequate or shall cause any hardship to the applicant.