H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) THE Federal Bank Limited through its Chief Manager Sri George john is before this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution, inter alia, seeking a writ to set aside the orders made by this Court in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994. In support of the prayer in the writ petition petitioner states that the 1st respondent herein without im- pleading the persons interested in the lis, including the petitioner-Bank has obtained an order from this Court on 23-2-1994. ( 2 ) TO appreciate the stand of the petitioner and his learned Counsel before this Court in my opinion, the facts and the reliefs sought in the w. P. No. 4965 of 1994 requires to be elaborately noticed. They are as under: the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited is a Bank registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. It has its Registered Office at Aluva, Kerala and a Branch Office at andheri, Bombay. M/s. Vision Technology India Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is arrayed as third respondent in the petition. The 4th respondent-M/s. Vasanth Color laboratories Limited is also a registered company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition were Directors of both the 3rd and 4th respondent-Companies. The petitioner-Co-operative Bank was before this Court primarily aggrieved by the permission granted by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent-Company to the public issue of Rs. 30. 00 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at par aggregating to Rs. 3. 00 crores on the basis of prospectus issued by 3rd respondent-Company. The public issue was to open on 23rd February, 1994. In the petition it was asserted that the 3rd respondent-Company while publishing the prospectus for issue of the equity shares, it has advertised that the 3rd respondent-Company has taken physical possession of 4th respondent-Company with the permission of respondents 4 to 7 who were all Directors of the 4th respondent-Company, which is a defaulter in the repayment of loan and interest to the petitioner-Co-operative Bank from 1988 onwards. It is further stated that the Registered Offices of both the Companies are located in the same premises, and that the 3rd and 4th respondent-Companies are said to have entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 1-10-1993, under which the existing assets and the other facilities of the 4th respondent-Company is taken over by the 3rd respondent-Company and further even though the agreed consideration of Rs. 135 lakhs has not been paid by the 3rd respondent-Company it has taken physical possession of the existing land and building and plant and machinery from the 4th respondent-Company, It is his further assertion in the petition that the petitioner-Co-operative Bank has vital interest in the assets of the 4th respondent-Company. It was its specific case before this Court that while the statements in the prospectus speak regarding the take over of the existing assets and facilities of the 4th respondent-Company by the 3rd respondent-Company, no reference is made anywhere in the prospectus with regard to the existing liabilities of the 4th respondent-Company nor is anything stated with regard to the huge liability of the 4th espondent-Company and respondents 5, 6 and 7 to the petitioner-Co-oprative bank and on the other hand, false statements in the prospectus are deliberately made by the 4th respondent-Company and its Directors and other persons who are responsible for the issue of the prospectus that there are no dues to financial institutions or banks by the promoters. It is further alleged that the respondents 4 to 7 have deliberately suppressed material facts with regard to the liabilities of respondents 5 to 7 to the petitioner-Co-operative Bank and other financial institutions and thereby misleading the investing public with regard to the true state of affairs of the 3rd respondent-Company and persuading them to subscribe for the shares offered to public in the present public issue of shares. It is stated that the 1st respondent therein namely the Securities and Exchange Board of India which is under a statutory duty to protect the interests of investors has vetted the draft prospectus and thereby has miserably failed to discharge its duties by permitting the 3rd respondent to go ahead with the public issue of its equity shares. It is stated that the 1st respondent therein namely the Securities and Exchange Board of India which is under a statutory duty to protect the interests of investors has vetted the draft prospectus and thereby has miserably failed to discharge its duties by permitting the 3rd respondent to go ahead with the public issue of its equity shares. Insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned, it is stated that he is an officer of the Central Government and who is the authority vested with vast powers under the provisions of the Companies Act to prevent any fraud or deception being practiced upon the members of the general public by Companies by misleading them either by suppressing material facts or by giving a false picture of the true state of affairs of the Companies and also failed to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 7 and effectively deal with them to safeguard the interests of the public. ( 3 ) WITH these averments and allegations petitioner in the writ petition had sought for a direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to revoke the consent given for the public issue of Rs. 30. 00 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at par aggregating to Rs. 3. 00 crores by the 3rd respondent-Company on the basis of the prospectus produced along with the writ petition. The second prayer that was sought for is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 7 by exercising the statutory powers vested in them for the protection of the interests of the creditors of the Company and the interests of the investors and th general public and lastly, to restrain the respondents 3 to 7 from raising any capital by issue of equity shares to the general public without disclosing the liabilities of respondents 4 to 7 to the petitioner-Co-operative Bank and other financial institutions and without providing for the discharge of the said liabilities. ( 4 ) BY way of interim order, the petitioner-Co-operative Bank had sought for an interim order restraining the 3rd respondent from going ahead with the proposed public issue of Rs. 30. 00 lakhs equity shares of rs. 10/- each for cash at par aggregating Rs. 3. 00 crores scheduled to be open for public subscription on 23-2-1994, pending disposal of the writ petition. 30. 00 lakhs equity shares of rs. 10/- each for cash at par aggregating Rs. 3. 00 crores scheduled to be open for public subscription on 23-2-1994, pending disposal of the writ petition. ( 5 ) THE matter was posted before this Court on 22-2-1994 for preliminary hearing. This Court by its order dated 22-2-1994 was pleased to issue emergent notice to the respondents and was further pleased to grant the interim prayer sought for by the petitioner for a period of four weeks. ( 6 ) EVEN before the ink in which the interim order was written by this court is dried, the respondents 3 to 7 were before this Court with a request to take up the matter for hearing out of turn. In view of the request so made, this Court had posted the matter on 23-2-1994 for further orders. On that day, petitioner-Co-operative Bank sought permission of the Court to delete respondents 1 and 2 against whom the main prayers were sought by the petitioner. The Court taking into consideration the request so made by the petitioner and his learned Counsel, permitted them to delete the respondents 1 and 2, On the same day, the respondents 3 to 7 had filed an application before this Court for modification of the interim orders granted on 22-2-1994. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Co-operative Bank and respondents 3 to 7, this Court was pleased to dispose off the writ petition itself, instead of considering the interim application for modification of the interim orders. The order made by this Court taking into consideration the understanding reached by the parties in the application is as under:"on 22-2-1994 when the matter was listed for preliminary hearing, emergent notice was ordered with an interim order as prayed for, for a period of 4 weeks. Today Counsel for petitioner Sri Ramdas and Sri S. P. Shankar, Counsel for respondents 3 to 7 have moved the Court on the ground that the matter is very urgent and they want the writ petition itself to be disposed of since some settlement has been arrived at subsequent to interim order that was granted and now respondents 3 to 7 have filed an application mentioning certain terms which are almost in the nature of granting relief to the petitioner which is sought in the writ petition. As requested, case is taken up today. As requested, case is taken up today. Counsel for petitioner requests that he may be permitted to delete respondents 1 and 2. Permission granted. He is permitted to delete respondents 1 and 2. Counsel for respondents 3 to 7 Sri S. P. Shankar files an application seeking modification of interim order that was granted yesterday. Sri Ramdas submits that he is in receipt of the said application. The conditions imposed and reliefs sought in the applications reads as follows". "2. Without going into the controversy of facts or law set out in the writ petition it is prayed that the stay order may be modified for the following reasons: (a) Without admitting the correctness of the claim of petitioner-Bank and without prejudice to the rights of respondents 3 to 7 of going into the exact amount of liability, the respondents 3 to 7 have no objection for earmarking a sum of rs. 65,00,000/- for payment of the exact amount due to petitioner immediately after the closure of issue. (b) There is no objection for issue of appropriate directions to the lead managers of 3rd respondent-Company to pay, subject to proof of accuracy of the claim of petitioner-Bank from out of the amount earmarked as above. (c) The stay order granted ex parte against public issue and allotment of shares be vacated subject to imposition of conditions (a) and (b) as above. Since the subject-matter of the writ petition is covered by the above order the writ petition may be disposed off in terms of the modified stay order". "sri Shankar, Counsel for respondents 3 to 7 submits that petition be disposed of since petitioner got the relief which he wanted. Sri ramdas, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the undertaking given by respondents 3 to 7, as for his client is concerned, his interest is safeguarded. As such, the petition be disposed of. Recording the same, petition disposed of in view of the settlement already arrived at and terms now incorporated and submission made by the petitioner's Counsel i. e. , his client's interest has been safeguarded by the said terms. Let a copy of this order be made available to both the parties". As such, the petition be disposed of. Recording the same, petition disposed of in view of the settlement already arrived at and terms now incorporated and submission made by the petitioner's Counsel i. e. , his client's interest has been safeguarded by the said terms. Let a copy of this order be made available to both the parties". ( 7 ) AFTER "obtaining" this order the petitioner-Co-operative Bank by its letter dated 11-3-1994 informed the petitioner-Federal Bank in W. P. No. 3386 of 1995 about the orders made by this Court and further informed the petitioner-Federal Bank that they are prohibited from making the payment of any amount or any part thereof to the Company M/s. Vision technology India Limited before settling dues of the Bank or until further orders from the Court. Along with this letter, the petitioner-Co-operative bank had enclosed a copy of the orders made by this Court in w. P. No. 4965 of 1994 disposed off 23-2-1994. After receipt of this information the petitioner-Federal Bank by its reply letter dated 26-3-1994 was pleased to inform the Go-operative Bank that they deny their liability to pay or retain the sum of Rs. 65. 00 lakhs mentioned in the letter dated 11-3-1994 and further was pleased to observe that their constituents namely M/s. Vision Technology India Limited, will be perfectly entitled to receive the net amounts collected in excess of the bridge loan and interest due thereon to satisfy the alleged dues. The Co-operative bank was not satisfied with the reply so filed by the Federal Bank. Therefore, through their learned Counsel issued a notice dated 1-5-1994 and in that, apart from others they have stated as under:"4. In the above circumstances, your denial of your liability to earmark a sum of Rs. 65. 00 lakhs out of the proceeds of the issue for payment towards the liability of M/s. Vasanth Color Laboratories limited to my client as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition to which your contribuent M/s. Vision Technology india Limited was a party and which is binding on you is untenable in law. I hereby call upon you to confirm to me or to my client within 10 days from today that you have duly complied with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and that you have earmarked the amount to the extent of Rs. 675. I hereby call upon you to confirm to me or to my client within 10 days from today that you have duly complied with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and that you have earmarked the amount to the extent of Rs. 675. 00 lakhs and are holding the same for eventual payment to my client. My client sincerely hopes that as a sister Bank you will not unnecessarily complicate the matter". ( 8 ) THIS was again replied by the petitioner-Federal Bank by its letter dated 29-5-1994 and in that, they have stated as under:"we have for acknowledgement your letter dated the 1st instant received by us on 9-5-1994, the contents of which have been carefully gone through. In rejoinder we have only to repeat and reiterate what has been stated already in our letter to your client dated 24-3-1994. We wish to add further that the Honorable High Court of Karnataka has directed the lead manager only to earmark a sum of Rs. 675 lakhs and as such the question of earmarking towards that account by us does not arise. Moreover, Vision Technology india Limited has to repay a sum of Rs. 100 lakhs and interest thereon to us being the bridge loan granted by us to that company. We have lien, from other Banks to secure our bridge loan referred to above. In the circumstances we submit that your explanations and clarifications seem to be misconceived to say the least". ( 9 ) AFTER this reply, the Federal Bank had filed an application under order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court with a request to implead them as parties to the writ petition. They had also filed one more application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code inter alia, requesting this Court to modify the orders made by this Court on 23-2-1994 to the effect that the proceeds of the public issue be appropriated to the bridge loan liability of the 3rd respondent-Company to the impleading applicant-Bank, so as to discharge the liability in its entirety on a first priority basis. These applications came up before this Court for orders on 13-1-1995. It appears that the learned Counsel for the applicant-Bank sought leave of the Court to withdraw I. As. I and II, with liberty to pursue the other remedies that may be available to him. These applications came up before this Court for orders on 13-1-1995. It appears that the learned Counsel for the applicant-Bank sought leave of the Court to withdraw I. As. I and II, with liberty to pursue the other remedies that may be available to him. This court granted the permission so sought for by the petitioner and was pleased to dispose off the applications as under:"learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw I. As. I and II with liberty to pursue the other remedies that may be available to him. Reserving liberty as aforesaid these i. As. shall stand disposed off as withdrawn". Thereafter, petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court. ( 10 ) THE Federal Bank Limited has its registered office at Aluva, kerala and branch office at Bombay. The petitioner-Federal Bank has granted a bridge loan of Rs. 1,00 crore to the 2nd respondent-M/s. Vision technology India Limited. That loan was granted by the petitioner-Federal bank in view of the communication it had received from the several bankers such as Bank of Baroda, State Bank of India, Punjab National bank, Allahabad Bank, Bank of Madura Limited, the Karur Vysya Bank limited, the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited. The lead managers to the issue were Vatsa Finance Limited and Inter-Corporate Financiers and consultants Limited. While granting this bridge loan the 2nd respondent herein had specifically agreed for discharge of its liability within four months from the date of receipt of the amounts. An agreement to that effect had been entered into by the 2nd respondent-Bank with the petitioner-Federal Bank and that document is produced by the petitioner-Federal bank before this Court as Annexure-B to the writ petition. The Bankers to the issue namely the State Bank of India, Bank of baroda and others had informed the petitioner-Federal Bank that they are all principal Bankers to the issue and they will reimburse the bridge loan and interest if any, due thereon to the petitioner-Bank immediately on receipt of the intimation of allotment of shares and that they would not wait for any other instructions in that regard. They have also informed the petitioner-Co-operative Bank that they as principal Bankers to the issue shall apply the amounts received from the underwriters on account of development received only towards reimbursement of the bridge loan and interest due thereon out of the said amounts and shall not transfer any part of the said amounts to the Company's account. They had also undertaken that as the principal Bankers to the issue they shall not appropriate to the account of the Company any amount that may be received on account of the application money on receipt from the underwriters in discharge of their underwriting obligation unless the entire bridge loan and the accrued interest thereof have been fully reimbursed to the Federal Bank Limited to its satisfaction. Basing on this correspondence I am informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Federal Bank, that they had sanctioned a bridge loan of Rs. 1. 00 crore to the 3rd respondent-Company. ( 11 ) SINCE the respondent-Company had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 65. 00 lakhs out of the public issue in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994, petitioner is of the view that its interests are affected by such order and the said order could not have been passed without hearing the interested parties and also in view of the main prayer sought in the writ petition. Therefore, it is before this Court for a writ to set aside the orders made by this court in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994, dated 23-2-1994. ( 12 ) SRI Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Federal bank submits firstly that the petitioner-Co-operative Bank in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994 should have impleaded the Federal Bank Limited as one of the parties to the Us it had filed before this Court. Since the same is not done, the non-joinder of the necessary parties is fatal to the proceedings. Since the same is not done, the non-joinder of the necessary parties is fatal to the proceedings. Nextly, the learned Counsel would contend that the 3rd and 4th respondents in the other writ petition by suppressing the material facts before this Court have secured an order on 23-2-1994 which financially affects the interest of the petitioner-Federal Bank and thirdly, it is stated that the order made by this Court would seriously affect the interest of the bank and the Bank will not be in a position to recover the bridge loan sanctioned to the respondent-Company in view of the orders made by this Court. Therefore requests this Court to set aside the said order. In support of these contentions the learned Counsel firstly invites my attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of shivdeo Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others, to contend that this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can review an order made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel also invites my attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v Rajendra Singh and Others. ( 13 ) PER contra, Sri Ram das, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the relationship of the petitioner- Federal bank with that of 3rd respondent-Company is that of Creditor and Debtor and also the agent of the respondent-Company, cannot be heard to say that they should have been impleaded as one of the parties to the lis and they should have been heard in the matter. Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that, if for any reason, the petitioner- Federal bank is aggrieved by the orders made by this Court on 23-2-1994, they should agitate the matter by filing an appeal for appropriate reliefs and not by way of a writ petition. In support of that contention the learned counsel invites my attention to the observations made by the Apex court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra and in the case of Smt. Triveniben v State of Gujarat. The learned counsel also draws my attention to certain observations made by the learned Author Sri Ramachandra Rao, in the book Law of Writs. The learned counsel also draws my attention to certain observations made by the learned Author Sri Ramachandra Rao, in the book Law of Writs. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot review the order made by the learned Single judge of this Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. The learned Counsel also submits that there is a delay of about 6 months by the petitioner-Federal Bank in approaching this court though they were fully aware of the proceedings and the orders made by this Court. Therefore submits that this Court should reject the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner-Federal Bank. ( 14 ) BEFORE I advert to the various contentions canvassed by the learned Counsels for the respective parties, let me first notice the observations made by the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh's case, supra. In the said decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution 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 that case the High Court had cancelled an allotment made in favour of 'b' though he was not a party to the writ proceedings. Subsequently, on 'b' filing a petition to rehear the whole matter, the High Court did so. The Supreme Court held that the petition filed by 'b' was maintainable and the High Court had not acted without jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at the instance of 'b' who was not a party to the proceedings. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Limited v Lt. Governor of Delhi, was pleased to observe as under:"it is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that, a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it to do so". The normal principle is that, a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it to do so". The Court was further pleased to observe:"but whatever the nature of proceedings, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be granted with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be considered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility". (emphasis supplied) ( 16 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of A. R. Antulay v R. S. Nayak , was pleased to observe as under:"that the fundamentals of administration of justice demand that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court, and if this had been done, the wrong must be remedied so long as it is within the human machinery of administration of justice. So once it is realised that a mistake had been committed, it would not only be appropriate but also the duty of the Court to rectify the mistake". (emphasis supplied) ( 17 ) THE Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company limited, supra, was pleased to observe as under:"3. "fraud and justice never dwell together". (Frans etjus nun- quam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" Lazarus Estate Limited v Beasley. 4. For a High Court in India to say that it has no power even to consider the contention that the awards secured are the by-products of stark fraud played on a Tribunal, the plenary power conferred on the High Court by the Constitution may become a mirage and people's faith in the efficacy of the High Courts would corrode". ( 18 ) KEEPING in view the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, let me now come back to the orders made by this court in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994 and how that order would affect the interest of the petitioner-Federal Bank Limited in this writ petition. ( 18 ) KEEPING in view the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, let me now come back to the orders made by this court in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994 and how that order would affect the interest of the petitioner-Federal Bank Limited in this writ petition. ( 19 ) FIRST and foremost in that writ petition, petitioner-Co-operative bank was finding fault with the prospectus issued by the 3rd respondent Company and also was finding fault with the 1st and 2nd respondents for not discharging their statutory powers vested in them for the protection of the interest of the petitioner-Bank and other creditors of the Companies and the interests of the investors and general public. Therefore, the petitioner-Co-operative Bank was before this Court for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents therein to revoke the consent given to the 3rd respondent-Company for public issue of the equity shares and also for a direction to them to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 7 for misleading the public by suppressing the material facts in the prospectus. By way of an interim prayer, it had requested this Court to restrain the 3rd respondent-Company from going ahead with the allotment of equity shares. Sum and substance of the grounds urged in the writ petition were that, since the 3rd respondent-Company had not brought out in the prospectus for the purpose of public issue its liabilities to the financial institutions and creditors, the 1st and 2nd respondents could not have given permission to the 3rd respondent to come out with the public issue of shares. ( 20 ) WHEN the pleadings and the prayer of the petitioner-Co-operative bank was as stated earlier, the Co-operative Bank becomes wiser after service of notice on respondents and to suite its convenience the petitioner-Co-operative Bank deletes respondents 1 and 2 against whom the main prayers were sought in the writ petition. The understanding between the petitioner-Co-operative Bank and the respondents 3 to 7 is in the nature of consent order for attachment before judgment of the liabilities of the 3rd respondent-Company to the petitioner-Bank. A plain reading of the order made by this Court gives a clear indication to that effect. The understanding between the petitioner-Co-operative Bank and the respondents 3 to 7 is in the nature of consent order for attachment before judgment of the liabilities of the 3rd respondent-Company to the petitioner-Bank. A plain reading of the order made by this Court gives a clear indication to that effect. This Court while disposing off the writ petition, on the memo filed by the respondents 3 to 7 to which memo the petitioner was also a party, clearly indicates that the respondents 3 to 7 therein have no objection for earmarking a sum of Rs. 65. 00 lakhs for payment of the exact amount due to the petitioner-Co-operative Bank immediately after the closure of the issue. Further, they had agreed for issue of appropriate directions to the Lead Managers of the 3rd respondent-Company to pay subject to proof of accuracy of the claim of the petitioner-Co-operative bank out of the amounts earmarked as above. ( 21 ) BY this process the 3rd respondent-Company though it had taken a bridge loan of Rs. 1. 00 crore from the Federal Bank Limited, suppressing this material had filed a memo before this Court and obtained an order by which it had agreed to earmark a sum of Rs. 65. 00 lakhs. In my opinion, by this sort of an order the petitioner-Co-operative Bank as well as respondents 3 to 7 have deprived the petitioner-Federal Bank from realising its legitimate dues from the respondent-Company after the public issue. The order made by this Court in my opinion would really affect the interest of the petitioner-Federal Bank, and at the same time I cannot find fault with the petitioner-Co-operative Bank, because they were not parties to the understanding between the Federal Bank and the respondents 3 to 7. But atleast it was the duty of the 3rd respondent-Company to have brought to the notice of this Court that the agreement whatever entered with the Federal Bank Limited before agreeing to earmark a sum of Rs. 65. 00 lakhs from the amounts they would realise by the public issue. In my opinion, by deliberately suppressing this information, they have deprived the petitioner-Federal Bank from realising its legal dues from the 3rd respondent-Company. This in my opinion, is an error and a manifest injustice that is done to the petitioner-Bank. 65. 00 lakhs from the amounts they would realise by the public issue. In my opinion, by deliberately suppressing this information, they have deprived the petitioner-Federal Bank from realising its legal dues from the 3rd respondent-Company. This in my opinion, is an error and a manifest injustice that is done to the petitioner-Bank. Therefore, as observed by the Supreme Court in Shivdeo singh's case, supra, this Court can interfere in a matter of this nature in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 22 ) SRI Ramdas, learned Counsel for the respondents herein would submit that petitioner need not be a party in the other writ petition for the sole reason that the petitioner-Bank in that case was not seeking any relief against the Federal Bank. Petitioner's learned Counsel may be correct when he makes that statement that Federal Bank was not necessary party for effective disposal of the writ petition for the prayers initially sought in the writ petition but after it agreed for the disposal of the writ petition on the understanding reached by them with respondents 3 to 7, they should have impleaded petitioner-Federal Bank as a party to the proceedings, since the understanding that they had reached would substantially affect the interest of the Federal Bank. Therefore the learned Counsel for respondent is not correct when he asserts that the Federal Bank Limited was not a necessary party at least for the disposal of the application filed by respondents 3 to 7. ( 23 ) LEARNED Counsel submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before this Court against the order made by this Court. Therefore, this Court should decline to exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In my opinion, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivadeo singh, supra, Northern India Caterers case, supra and A. R. Antulay's case, supra, as well as in United India Insurance Company's case, supra, that contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents has no merit whatsoever. Therefore, once it realises that a mistake has been committed and a grave error has crept in earlier order by judicial fallibility, this court, in my opinion, can entertain a writ petition and review its earlier order to prevent miscarriage of justice and correct palpable errors committed by it. Therefore, once it realises that a mistake has been committed and a grave error has crept in earlier order by judicial fallibility, this court, in my opinion, can entertain a writ petition and review its earlier order to prevent miscarriage of justice and correct palpable errors committed by it. Therefore, the said contention is rejected. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel also contends that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner-Federal Bank in approaching this Court. In my opinion, this contention has no merit whatsoever. Petitioner-Federal bank in fact was corresponding with the petitioner-Co-operative Bank. Since they did not get any positive answer from them, they did approach this Court on 28-11-1994 by making an appropriate application to implead themselves a parties and also for modification of the order. After realising that they may not get any relief in the application, they have filed this writ petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner-Federal bank have also explained the delay in approaching this Court. The explanation so offered by the petitioner, in my opinion, is wholly satisfactory and therefore, the same requires to be accepted by this Court. Therefore, the contention canvassed that the petition requires to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches cannot be accepted. ( 25 ) SINCE I have come to the conclusion that there is a mistake that has crept in the orders made by this Court in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994 disposed off on 23-2-1994, the same requires to be set aside by this Court. ( 26 ) FOR the reasons stated and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, in exercise of my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, I set aside the orders made by this court in W. P. No. 4965 of 1994 disposed off on 23-2-1994. Office is directed to post the W. P. No. 4965 of 1994 before the Court for further hearing of the petition. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .