JUDGMENT This review petition is filed seeking an order to review the judgment and order passed in W.P. No. 156 of 2005 and W.P. No.1 of 2006, dated 1-9-2004. 2. Respondent - writ petitioner was detained under the provisions of Goondas Act. The same was challenged before this Court. Statements were filed. Writ petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and Another v Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani1. This Court placing reliance on the said judgment has chosen to allow the writ petition in W.P. No. 1 of 2006. The said order is sought to be reviewed in the review petition. 3. Statement of objection is filed by the respondent. It is contended that no case is made out for reviewing the order passed by this Court. Even otherwise, it is contended that the order of detention has come to an end and even if the order has come to an end, petitioner cannot ordered to be taken back to jail in the given circumstances. 4. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material placed on record. 5. Admitted facts would reveal that this Court noticing the judgment in Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani, in para 11 has chosen to allow the writ petition after expressing its views in the matter. Now it is brought to our notice that the said judgment is not accepted in T. Devaki v Government of Tamil Nadu and Others2. The Supreme Court in T. Devaki's case, at para 11 has categorically ruled that they do not agree with the views expressed by the learned Judges in Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani's case. Therefore, what is clear to us is that the judgment of 1988 is not available to the petitioner for the purpose of relying in support of his submissions in the light of subsequent judgment in T. Devaki's case, We have basically followed the judgment of 1988 and provided relief to the petitioner. 6. In fact, when the said factum of 1988 judgment having been held to be not acceptable in Devaki's case was brought to our notice, we spent sleepless nights on account of an error committed by us in the light of party not bringing to our notice, the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Devaki's case. 6. In fact, when the said factum of 1988 judgment having been held to be not acceptable in Devaki's case was brought to our notice, we spent sleepless nights on account of an error committed by us in the light of party not bringing to our notice, the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Devaki's case. At any rate, our judicial conscience pricked on account of an order having been passed by us relying upon a judgment which is held to be not accepted by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. Temple of justice has to be absolutely pure to maintain sanctity attached to it. 6-A. Courts have considered the scope of review in several judgments. The Federal Court in Jamna Kuer v Lal Bahadur3 has ruled that where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the question as to how that error occurred, is of no relevance for the purpose of review, and that it is immaterial whether such error occurred by reason of the Counsel's mistake or had crept in by reason of oversight on the part of the Court. The Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury1 would hold in para 8 as under: . "It is well-settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 : (1979)4 SCC 389 , has made the following pertinent observations: ''It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the 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. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. 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 the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; 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 of review is hot to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committee by the Subordinate Court"". Recently, the Apex Court in Haridas Das v Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others2, notices the scope of review in para 14 reading as under: "A perusal of the Order 57, Rule 1 show that review of a judgment or an order could be sought.- (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason". 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Selection Committee for Admission to Medical and Dental Colleges v M.R. Nagaral, has chosen to hold that the overlooking a binding decision of the Supreme Court constitutes a ground for review of order or judgment of a Court. The said judgment is applicable to the facts of this case. 8. This Court has noticed that judgment of the Madras High Court in Venkatarajulu Naidu v Rattamma Garu2, the case of M.R. Nagaraj, has ruled that where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it should be corrected at the earliest possible time without driving the parties to the expense of an appeal or revision petition to which there would be no answer. 9. 9. In the light of these case-laws, what is clear to us is that any error apparent has to be correct at the earliest in the interest of justice. In the case on hand, as mentioned earlier, we have followed an overruled judgment and any order based on an overruled decision has to be recalled at the earliest time as held by Courts of law. 10. In these circumstances, following the case-laws referred to above, we deem it proper to accept the review petition and we recall our order by way of review in the light of an error apparent on the face of the record. It is however brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Singh Mann v Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others3 by Sri Javali, learned Counsel. That was a case dealing with a criminal matter and the Court was considering the scope of Sections 482 and 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. That judgment is of no assistance to Sri Javali, learned Counsel. The next question that is required to be considered by us is what is further to be done in the light of this order. Admittedly, the detenue is a beneficiary in terms of our order and he was set at liberty even before completion of his period in the light of our order. Now that we have recalled our order, the consequence has to follow in the interest of maintaining purity in justice system. In these circumstances, despite the opposition of Sri Javali, learned Counsel and despite his contention that his client cannot be sent back to jail, in the light of a detention order having come to an end in the case on hand. We are not prepared to accept his submissions. A beneficiary of a defective order cannot be permitted to have the benefit and that benefit has to be recalled in the light of recalling benefit order. In these circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the police to take him to custody for the remaining period. 11. Office is to list this petition for appropriate orders on merits. Ordered accordingly. 1. 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 325 (DBl. 2. AIR 1939 Mad. 293 3. AIR 2001 SC 43 : (2001}1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC eCri.) 113