( 1 ) THIS review application has been filed by the State of Gujarat in respect of the orders passed by this Court on 9th June 10 June and 11/06/1981 in Special Civil Application No. 748 of 1981 (C. E. and R. C. v. State XXII G. L. R. 712 ). On 9/06/1981 we issued an ex-parte ad interim mandatory injunction directing the State Government to issue a notification under sec. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 extending the life of the Commission upto 24/06/1981 and that notification was accordingly issued on 9/06/1981 On 10th June 1981 Mr. Vavakil appearing for the State Government urged arguments before us to persuade us to vacate the ad interim mandatory injunction which had been issued by us on 9/06/1981 At the end of the bearing on 10/06/1981 we indicated the order that we proposed to pass and we stated that reasons for the judgment would be pronounced on the next day that is 11/06/1981 and on 11/06/1981 we set out the reasons for rejecting the application of the State Government that the ex-parte ad interim mandatory injunction issued on 9th June IQ81 should d he vacated. He is against these three orders of 9th June 10 June and 11/06/1981 that this review application has been filed by the State Government and the State Government has asked us to review our orders and particularly the order of 11/06/1981 and the main ground on which Mr. Vakil on behalf of the State Government has pressed for review is that of error apparent on the face of the record. In this connection it may be pointed out that Mr. Vakil has cited a number of authorities on the scope of the review on the power of review when the High Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and under what circumstances review can be exercised and has been exercised by some of the High Courts. In connection with the power of review in matters arising under Article 226 of the Constitution he drew our atteution to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheaved Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1909 and we pointed out to him that this decision of the Supreme Court has been considered of the Supreme Court itself in the subsequent decision in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1947. Mr. Vakil has also relied an the decision of the Bombay High Court in J. G. Sinkar of State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1981 Bom. 184 and the decisions in P. N. Eswara Iyer v. The Registrar Supreme Court of India A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 808 Sellaya Pillai v. Devaraya Pillai A. I. R. 1972 Mad. 309 Head Notes (A) and (B) The Punjab University Manmohan A. I. R. 1973 Punjab 74 Ammalu v. Kothambari Vellachi A. I. R. 1974 Kerala 116 Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 469. Sir Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter A. I. R. 1949 F. C. 106 and North West Frontier Province. v. Suraj v. Narain Anand A. I. R. 1949 P. C. 112 and Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D. N. Mehta A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 2162. Now as regards all these authorities it may be pointed out that though accordingly to the Supreme Court decision in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1909 (supra) the High Court as a Court of plenary jurisdiction has very hide powers in reviewing its own offers under Article 226 the decision in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharmas case A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1047 (supra) echoing the decision in Moran Mar Basselies Catholicos and Another v. Another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others 1954 S. C. 526 says tank there are definitive limits to the exercise of this power of review under Article 226 But even under those definitive limits it is clear that the High Court can exercise its power of review in matters under Article 226 in there is an error apparent on the face of the record. However we must point out that an error appellant on the face of the record must be such as can be seen by one who runs and reads that is an obvious and patent mistake and not something which con be established by a long d