The power of review is to be exercised only to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. The discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence is a ground for review.

( 1 ) THE Banaras Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner)filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1788 of 1974 against (1) the Collector, Varanasi District, varanasi (2) The Executive Engineer, Electricity Maintenance Division, P. O. D. L. W. Manduadih, Varanasi, (3) U. P. State Electricity Board, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow and (4) State of U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) for various reliefs. The said writ petition was partly allowed by us on Feb. 2, 1981 (reported in 1981 All LJ 303 ). The present application for review has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the writ petition are contained in our judgment aforesaid dated Feb. 2, 1981. For purpose of the review application it may be stated in brief that the petitioner had a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for generating and supplying electricity within the municipal limits o! Varanasi. It also started with effect from Nov. 1962 purchasing a considerable quantity of electricity in bulk at voltage 11 KV from the U. P. State Electricity board, respondent No. 3 in regard to state of electricity by it the U. P. State Electricity Board issued a notification dated 28th Dec. 1971 revising the grid tariff to be applicable with effect from Jan. 1, 1972. In the bills issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board to the petitioner between January and August, 1972 rebate of 5 per cent purporting to be under Clause (6) (b) of the aforesaid notification was granted to the petitioner. In subsequent bills dated Oct. 3, 1972 and nov. 1, 1972 however the said rebate was not granted. Not only that two bills both dated Oct. 30, 1972 were served on the petitioner making demand for refund of the amounts mentioned there in the ground that rebate of five per cent had earlier been wrongly allowed in the bills for the period between Jan. and Aug. , 1972. Even though the bills for the period between September, 1972 and march, 1973 did not allow any rebate the petitioner made payments after deducting rebate calculated at the rate of five per cent. Subsequently a notice of demand dated Jan. 18, 1974, was served by U. P. State Electricity Board on the petitioner requiring it to pay a sum of Rupees 9,38,910. 85 within (30) days failing which it was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. An objection was sent by the petitioner to the aforesaid notice on Mar. 22, 1974 but no heed having been paid to the said objection Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1788 of 1974 referred to above was filed for various reliefs. Several grounds were urged in support of the writ petition by counsel for the petitioner but only one ground which is relevant for purposes of this writ petition is being mentioned. The petitioner had urged that in view of rebate having been allowed to them they adjusted their rates accordingly and did not pass it over to the consumers and as such the U. P. State Electricity Board was estopped from recovering the amount from them. None of the grounds urged found favour with this Court except one, namely, that for the period between Jan. 1, 1972 and Dec. 9, 1972 the U. P. State Electricity Board was estopped from recovering any amount from the petitioner deducted by it as rebate. The present review application has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 on the ground of discovery of fresh material. In the review petition it has been alleged that this case of the petitioner was wholly wrong that they had not passed over the enhanced amount to the consumers. They had actually moved the U. P. Government and the U. P. State Electricity Board for raising the rate chargeable from the consumers, keeping In view the increase in tariff, i. e. , Rupees 16,50,000/- which did not take the rebate into consideration at all and the Board after considering the matter sanctioned the increase in rate in part. So the plea of estoppel had no force at all. They seek to file these papers in