Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used for successive habeas corpus applications or review before another High Court Judge.

Article 226 jurisdiction vests in the High Court as a court, not in individual Judges acting independently; an order passed by a Division Bench under that provision is therefore an order of the High Court itself. On that basis, the High Court has no inherent power to review criminal matters, and Article 226 does not confer such a review power. A petitioner cannot bypass an earlier refusal under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by filing a review application or a fresh habeas corpus petition before another Judge, because that would amount to an impermissible review by the High Court of its own decision. The successive application was incompetent and could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after rejection of an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a petitioner can maintain a review application or make a fresh habeas corpus application under Article 226 of the Constitution before another Judge of the High Court.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 226 is vested in the High Court as such, not in individual Judges acting independently. An order made by a Division Bench on an application under Article 226 is therefore an order of the High Court itself. The High Court has no inherent power of review in criminal matters, and nothing in Article 226 confers such a power. Allowing a petitioner to approach different Judges successively would amount to an impermissible review by the High Court of its own decision. The availability of remedies under Article 32 and by way of special leave meant that the petitioner was not left without recourse.

Conclusion: The successive application for review or for a fresh writ under Article 226 before another Judge of the High Court was incompetent and could not be entertained.

---