Goel, J. - (1.) Sushil Kumar has moved this application to review the judgment dated 12_4_19821, in his habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The District Judge, Allahabad by order dated 3-11-1981 directed the detention of the petitioner Sushil Kumar in Central Prison, Naini under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The Bench constituting of myself and Honble 5. 3. Hyder, 3., after hearing the parties counsel and carefully considering the cases cited found that the order of detention was not in any way bad in law. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed
(2.) Sri D. S. Misra Advocate for the applicant has been heard at length.
(3.) In the case of Ariham Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, it was held that the power of review inheres in every High Court and there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court for exercising the power of review to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. The Supreme Court then indicated the limits of the exercise of power of review in the following words: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power to review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court It is evident that the conditions in which power of review can be exercised are the same as mentioned in Rule 1 of Order 47 of Criminal Procedure Code.;