The High Court has the power to interfere with the orders of the Bhagchas Conciliation Board and the Appellate Officer under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, despite S. 9 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, if justice demands such interference and there is no other way of securing justice.

HARRIES, C. J. :- This is a petition for revision of orders of a Bhag Chas Conciliation Board and of an Appellate Officer under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The present petitioner cultivated a big area of land in two moujas in the Sunderban area and for this purpose he entered into an agreement with the opposite parties who cultivated the land as bhagchasis.

3.On 9-1-1951 one of the bhagchasis, Benode Behari De, filed a petition before the Bhagchas Conciliation Board and this he appeared to do on behalf of himself and a number of other bargadars. The petitioner filed an objection and contended that this application was not in form in that it was vague and indefinite and the names of the other bhagchasis were not given. The area, location and other particulars of the lands cultivated were not given and the petition was not verified as required by R. 6 Sub-R. (2) of the rules made under the West Bengal Bargadars Act.

4. The Board directed by an order that each bhagchasi should file a separate petition in conformity with R. 6 of the said rules. Separate applications were then filed, but it is to be observed that no copies of these applications were served on the petitioner and he had no notice of the filing of the petitions.

5. Later, the petitioner objected to these individual applications on the ground that they were vague and indefinite and not in proper form and further that they did not give the particulars which the rules required they should give. Further it was pointed out that none of these individual applications were verified.

6.The Bhagchas Conciliation Board overruled all the objections of the petitioner and refused to grant him any time to produce his defence. An award was eventually made dividing the produce.

7.The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Officer who dismissed his appeal.

8.Before us a preliminary point has been taken that interference by this Court is expressly forbidden by S. 9, West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, which is in these terms:

"1. No award or order or other proceedings whatsoever of a Board or of an Appellate Officer and no proceedings whatsoever in execution of such award or order shall be questioned in any Court.

2. No Court shall entertain any suit or any proceedings whatsoever in respect of a matter required under Sub-s. (1) of S. 7 to be decided by a Board referred to in that sub-section."

9. It is quite clear from S. 2 (e), West Bengal Bargadars Act that S. 9 applies to a High Court. But it is urged by Mr. Janah on behalf of the petitioner that S. 9, West Bengal Bargadars Act, cannot take away powers given to this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. That article gives the Court a right of superintendence over all Courts and tribunals in territories over which this Court exercises jurisdiction. There can be no doubt I think that a Bhagchas Conciliation Board is a tribunal and in any event it is clear that the Appellate Officer is a tribunal. The Bhagchas Conciliation Board has to hear applications and decide them according to law. They have to give the parties an opportunity of putting forward their contentions and I think there can be no doubt whatsoever that a Bhagchas Conciliation Board is a tribunal which has to exercise its functions judicially. The Appellate Officer hears appeals from the Board and I think it is equally clear that he is a tribunal if not a Court.

10. As both the Bhagchas Conciliation Board and the Appellate Officer are tribunals this Court has power of superintendence over them under Art. 227 of the Constitution. That power cannot be taken away by any Act of the local legislature. The West Bengal Bargadars Act was passed after the Constitution came into force and if it purports to take away the right of superintendence of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution, then clearly S. 9 of the Act to that extent is ultra vires the Constitution. The right cannot be taken away by the State legislature and therefore it must be held that a power of sup