P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This application has been moved on behalf half of Ravi Sharma-petitioner seeking review of my judgment dated 24.1.89, by which I had dismissed the W.P. brought by the petitioner seeking quashment of the detention order made against him u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, with a view to prevent him from abetting and financing the export from India of narcotic drugs. One of the points raised in the W.P. was that a copy of the summons issued to the petitioner before recording his statement was not supplied in spite of demand being made to enable the petitioner to make an effective and purposeful representation. While dealing with this point, I held that there is no reference even casually or incidentally made to any written summons being served on the petitioner either in the grounds of detention or in any other document relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the detention order and thus, it was not incumbent upon the authorities to have supplied copy of the said summons to the petitioner. I had in para 17 of the judgment mentioned that I had gone through the grounds of detention as well as copy of the statement of the petitioner and found that there was no reference at all made to any summons having been issued to the petitioner.
(2) It has been now pointed out to me that no copy of the statement of the petitioner was filed on the record and thus, this Court made a mistake in making a reference to the copy of the statement in its order. It is true that no copy has been filed on the record at the time the arguments were addressed in Court. However, it is not again disputed before me that while addressing the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner had read a portion of the statement of the petitioner from the copy of the statement of the petitioner but unfortunately the said copy of the statement was not placed on the record by the petitioner's counsel. Due to this fact and on account of some misapprehension, this Court mentioned about having read the copy of the statement. At any rate, even if the observation of this Court with regard to having read the contents of the statement of the petitioner from the copy of the statement are omitted from the judgment, the same would not have any impact on the conclusion reached by me in deciding the petition.
(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in case this Court had been supplied the copy of the statement of the petitioner, then the' contents of the statement of the petitioner would have shown that a written summons had been served on the petitioner and thus, this Court could have come to the conclusion that there had been made a casual reference to the written summons in the copy of the statement of the petitioner which was relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention order and hence, the petitioner was legally entitled to have copy of the said summons to enable him to make an effective and purposeful representation. It is now hypothetical to say as to what could have been the decision of this Court in case the copy of the statement of the petitioner had been filed on the record. The legal position as far as the scope of the review is concerned is quite clear. The court can review its judgment only if it is shown from the record that any. error of fact or law had been committed by this Court. As already mentioned above, the only error of fact pointed out is that this Court assumed mistakenly that a copy of the statement of the petitioner was on the record which was not a fact. However, even if this particular observation of this Court is considered deleted from the judgment that would not mean that the petitioner is entitled to have review of the judgment by filing the copy of the statement of the petitioner on record Along with the review application. Ignoring the copy of the statement of the petitioner which was not there on the record when the judgment was given, there is no apparent error committed by the Court which could justify this Court to review its judgment. The record would be then considered bereft of the copy of the statement of the petitioner and taking, the record as it is it cannot be said that any error of law or fact had been committed by this Court in its decision by which the petition had been dismissed.
(4) The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that a review of the judgment given u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not possible and he has cited In re : Prahlad Krishna Kurne, Air 1961 Bombay 25, wherein this proposition of law had been laid down. Same law had been laid down In re T.V. Rao 1951 Madras 611, However, the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab Air 1963 Sc 1909, had clearly laid down that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In view of this pronouncement of the highest court it cannot be held that this Court has no power of review in the matters dealt with by this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgments given by Bombay and Madras High Courts cannot be considered laying down a good law on this point in view of the pronouncement of the highest Court.
(5) However, on merits, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to Keshodass v. Syed Murtaza Ali, : AIR1952All318 , wherein it has been held that the expression 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' obviously means that the alleged mistake or error must appear upon the face of the record and it should not be necessary to enter into any elaborate discussion to establish that the view expressed in the judgment under review is mistaken or erroneous. It was also held that if any mistake or error on a point of fact is alleged it must appear on a persual of the record and it should not be necessary to take into consideration other extraneous matters. In Benoy Krishna Rohatgi v. Surajbali Misra, : AIR1963Cal100 , it was observed that if, thereforee, the mistake or error is apparent on any document other than the judgment but constituting the records of the suit, an application for review cannot be thrown out. So, the document to which resort could be had for seeking the review of the judgment, the same must be present on the record at the time the judgment was given. Such is not the case here. Unfortunately the copy of the statement of the petitioner was not part of the record at the time the judgment was given. Hence, the question of this Court reviewing the judgment does not arise on the basis of the copy of the statement now being filed Along with the application seeking review of the petition. In Smt. Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, : 1987(14)ECC17 , the question which arose for decision was whether a written summons had been issued. The plea taken in that case by the authorities was that no written summons had been issued. The Supreme Court held that when summons were not in existence it could not be said that the detenu was prejudiced on account of authority withholding the summons. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however , has argued that in the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that in fact no written summons exist. It is true that the question whether written summons actually are there or not was not the question raised when the judgment was given by me. The only question which arose for consideration was whether the written summons stood referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention Admittedly there is no reference as such to the written summons in the grounds of detention. Hence, this Court came to the conclusion that the respondents were not legally bound to supply copy of such summons to the petitioner even if petitioner had requested for the same. I, hence, hold that it is not a fit case for reviewing the judgment. I dismiss the application.