JUDGMENT Ray, J. 1. A judgment has been delivered by Special Bench comprising of Three Judges of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 331 of 2009 on 14th July, 2011 by passing the following order:- "On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, hold that unless the following defects in the Act are removed in the light of our observations, the Act as presently structured is unconstitutional for the reasons stated earlier. However, the Act may be made operational by making suitable amendments, as indicated below : A) Section 4(2) (b) of the Act should be deleted and should be substituted by a new provision for constitution of Selection Committee broadly on the following lines: (a) Chief Justice of High Court or his nominee- as Chairperson (with a right of casting vote); (b) A senior Judge of the High Court-as Member; (c) Secretary in the Ministry of Finance- as Member; and (d) Secretary in any of the Ministries -as Member. B) In Section 4(3)(c)(i) of the Act, the phrase "Joint Secretary" should be deleted and substituted by "Secretary or Additional Secretary and the phrase "a specified Act" mentioned there in should be deleted and substituted by "all the specified Acts". C) In Section 4 (3) (c) (ii) of the Act, the phrase "Joint Secretary" should be deleted and substituted by "Secretary or Additional Secretary and the phrase "a specified Act" mentioned therein should be deleted and substituted by "all specified Acts." D) The last proviso to Section 4 (13) of the Act should be deleted and in stead thereof, suitable proviso should be incorporate by giving power of constitution of the larger Bench of the Tribunal to the Chairman of the same in case of difference of opinions between two or more benches with further stipulation that in such larger Bench, the number of Administrative Member must be less than that of Judicial Member, The writ-application is, thus, disposed of in terms of our present order." 2. THOUGH in the judgment there is no indication that the judgment will have prospective effect by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling and, as such, the judgment delivered will have a retrospective effect in view of the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case P. V. George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2007)3 SCC 557 . v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2007)3 SCC 557 . The doctrine of prospective overruling is a feature of American Jurisprudence and is an exception to the normal principle of law about effect of a judgement which normally is retrospective. The said doctrine has been applied by the Apex Court for the first time in the case L.C. Goloknath v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1967 SC 1643 . Despite such legal position about effect of said judgment as quoted above, this writ application could be considered for our adjudication, which has been filed assailing the order passed by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal applying the de facto and de jure doctrine. The principle has been illustrated by the Apex Court in several cases by holding, inter alia, that even if the appointment of a Judge or a Presiding Officer or any Adjudicatory Forum stand cancelled or set aside, the decision or judgment pronounced shall not be illegal on that score, but merit of the said judgment could be decided by Court. The three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case Gokaraju Rangarajan v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1981) 3 SCC 132 held to this effect" a Judge, de facto, is one who is not mere intruder or usufruct but one who held office under colour of lawful authority, even though his appointment is defective and may later be found to be so. Whatever be the defect of his title to the office, judgments pronounced by him and acts done by him when he was clothed with the power and function of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy as judgment pronounced and acts done by a Judge de jure. Such is a de facto doctrine born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and needless mischief." 3. THE Apex Court in the said case considered the views of different High Courts as well as the English Court, namely, the case Pulin Behari v. King Emperor reported in 16 Cal WN 1105; Emedisetti Ram Krishnaiah Sonsy. Such is a de facto doctrine born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and needless mischief." 3. THE Apex Court in the said case considered the views of different High Courts as well as the English Court, namely, the case Pulin Behari v. King Emperor reported in 16 Cal WN 1105; Emedisetti Ram Krishnaiah Sonsy. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 193; P.S. Menon v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1970 Kerala 165 (F.B.); Milward v. Thatcher reported in 100 E.R. 45; Sadding v. Lorant reported in 10 E.R. 165 (H.L.); Re: James (an insolvent) reported in (1977)1 A.E.R. 364 (C.A.), State of v. Carroll reported in (1871 )38 Conn. 449; Re: Albridge reported in (1893)15 N.Z.L.R. 361 and Nottonv. Sheby County reported in 30 L.Ed. 178. 4. SAME view echoed by the Apex Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in the case B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2001 )7 SCC 231, wherein appointment of a Chief Minister was quashed, but action taken by Chief Minister and Council of Ministers was declared as valid. The said de facto principle has been applied by the Apex Court in the case State of Haryana Co-operative Transport reported in AIR 1977 SC 237 where it is held "acts of officers de facto cannot be questioned for lack of legal authority except by some direct proceeding". The legal maxim that acts of officers de facto, cannot be allowed to be questioned collaterally, relied upon. 5. HAVING regard the said principle as discussed, we are of the view that the order impugned in the writ application could be decided under the anvil of judicial review by us sitting in the writ jurisdiction and the judgment dated 14th July, 2011 passed in W.P. No. 331 of 2009 though has not identified its force applying prospective overruling principle and, as such, effect could be considered as retrospective, the writ application is maintainable to test the legality and validity of the impugned order applying the "principle of de facto and de jure doctrine" as discussed above. 6. NOW the main matter is taken up for hearing. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 7. ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners were not parties before learned Tribunal below Petitioners have assailed the order of learned Tribunal in this writ application. 6. NOW the main matter is taken up for hearing. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 7. ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners were not parties before learned Tribunal below Petitioners have assailed the order of learned Tribunal in this writ application. There is a legal embargo of entertaining this writ application in view of judgment of Apex Court in that field. In the ease Rajiv Kumar and Anr. v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Anr. reported in (2010)4 SCC 554 relying upon the view expressed in the case L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India reported in (1997)3 SCC 261 , it has been held that tribunal is the first Court wherein grievance to be raised and nobody who is not a party in a proceeding before learned Tribunal, is entitled to move the writ application straightway. In that case, it has been further held that for remedy, review application to be filed before learned Tribunal below. Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 under Clause (d) provides power of Tribunal to review its own decision. 8. IN view of such and having regard to the views expressed by the Apex Court in Rajiv Kumar(supra), the writ application is not maintainable. It stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 9. PETITIONERS are at liberty to move before learned Tribunal below by filing an application for review/recalling in accordance with law agitating their grievances.