Review in writ jurisdiction must follow High Court bench-strength rules; a Division Bench review cannot go before a single judge.

A review application against an order of a Division Bench in Article 226 proceedings must be heard by a Bench of two Judges, not by a single Judge, where the High Court rules so provide. The court recognised that review in writ jurisdiction is available to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct a grave and palpable error, but only within the limits of the governing rules. Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply proprio vigore to writ proceedings so as to displace those rules. The procedural requirement was therefore that the review be placed before a Bench of the same strength, or at least two Judges.

---

---

Issues: Whether a review application against an order passed by a Division Bench in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be heard by a single judge, a division bench, or a larger bench.

Analysis: A court has no inherent power of review unless conferred by statute, but the power to review orders in writ jurisdiction is recognised where necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable error. The High Court rules governing proceedings under Article 226 did not provide otherwise, and Rules 3 and 4 of Chapter I required a review of an order passed by a Bench of two or more Judges to be heard by a Bench of as many Judges as the original Bench, or at least by a Bench of two Judges. Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply proprio vigore to writ proceedings so as to override those rules.

Conclusion: The review application was required to be heard by a Bench of two Judges and not by a single Judge.

---