JUDGMENT Sanyal, J. -This writ petition arises out of Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands Act, 1961. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Annexure 10 by which the Collector has reopened after six years the ceiling proceeding by stating the reasons as hereunder:- "I find that there has been some irregularity in disposal of the case." 2. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of Section 59 of Bihar Amendment Act 1987 this case should stand transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. 3. Mr. Tripathy appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the other hand contended that in view of the judgment of this court reported in 1988 PLJR 269 (Awadhesh Kumar Singh Viii. State of Bihar & others), the High Court retains jurisdiction to hear writ petition arising out of any proceeding under the Act but the tribunal would be one of the forum where also remedy can be sought for. Learned counsel submitted that this writ petition has been pending since five years in this court and the point involved in this case is an error of law apparent on the face of the order. Therefore, he may not be asked to exhaust the alternative remedy before the tribunal. This court has struck down section 59 of the Bihar Amendment Act, 1987 which required the High Court to transfer the case. This court has further held that section 55 is ultra vires and a writ petition against the Judgment of the tribunal is maintainable in this court. 4. Having considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties, I think it will be too harsh in this case to ask the petitioner to exhaust alternative remedy. In view of the judgment in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Singh (supra) the tribunal would be only one in the hierarchy for redressal of grievances with respect to a proceeding under the Act. The case has remained pending in this court for about five years. Further the impugned order per se is illegal because the ground assigned for exercise- of the power under 45 B (i) to reopen the case after about six years is extremely vague. The power under section 45 B (i) has to be exercised in accordance with law and not arbitrarily. Further the impugned order per se is illegal because the ground assigned for exercise- of the power under 45 B (i) to reopen the case after about six years is extremely vague. The power under section 45 B (i) has to be exercised in accordance with law and not arbitrarily. The earlier proceeding having been concluded six years before the Collector ought to have mentioned the irregularity noticed in order to enable the superior court to adjudge the reason assigned for reopening of the proceeding. The court is left to guess the irregularities. Such kind of order is not a speaking one and therefore not in accordance with law. I do not think in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court should refrain to exercise its discretion. 5. I therefore, Quash annexure 10 an order dated 23.3.1978 reopening ceiling case no.211/73-74 in State versus Nagendra Nath Choubey. 6. The writ petition is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.