Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Details: This is a Review Petition (Crl.) No. 453 of 2012 filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Mayawati vs. Union of India & Ors. (!)
• Background Facts: The Supreme Court previously directed the CBI to inquire into irregularities in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and verify assets regarding an outflow of Rs. 17 crores (!) . Following this, the CBI lodged FIR RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 against Ms. Mayawati alleging disproportionate assets (!) .
• Previous Order: In the earlier Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008, the Court quashed the said FIR, holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain specific directions to lodge an FIR for disproportionate assets and that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction (!) .
• Grounds for Review: The petitioner argued that despite the invalidity of the investigation, the Court has a duty under Article 32 to order the investigating agency to proceed further (!) .
• Legal Principles on Review Jurisdiction:
  • Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it is exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, a glaring omission, or a patent mistake (!) (!) (!) .
  • A review cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute a view; it is for correcting mistakes of inadvertence (!) (!) .
  • Mere repetition of old arguments or the possibility of two views on a subject is not a ground for review (!) (!) (!) .
  • Review is not maintainable if the same relief sought earlier was negatived (!) (!) .
• Court's Analysis: The Court noted that the arguments raised in the review petition were the same ones already dealt with and considered in the original judgment (!) . The Court reiterated that its decision was limited to the directions relating to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and the specific FIR contents (!) (!) .
• Conclusion: The Court found no material error manifest on the face of the record that undermines the soundness of the earlier order. Consequently, the review petition was disposed of (!) .