JUDGMENT - MANOHAR SUJATA V., J.: - The petitioners are brothers. They are the trustees of a public charitable trust known as “Shree Mahakali Trust” which is registered with the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Rajkot. 2. On 16th January, 1978 the High Denomination Bank Note (Demonetisation) Ordinance was promulgated which has been subsequently replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. The Act is deemed to have come into force on 16th day of January, 1978. The provisions of the said Act and the Ordinance are identical. 3. The petition relates to an application made by the Shree Mahakali Trust on 23rd January 1978 to the Reserve Bank of exchanging 81 notes of Rs. 1000/- each under the said Act. 4. Under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act it is provided as follows: “3. On the expiry of the 16th of January 1978, all high denomination bank notes shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 cease to be legal tender in payment or on account of any place. 4. Save as provided by or under this Act, no person shall, after the 16th day of January 1978, transfer to the possession of another person or receive into his possession from another person any high denomination bank note.” As a result after 16th January, 1978 all high denomination bank notes ceased to be legal tender and their transfer from one person to another was prohibited, except as provided under the Act. The definition of high denomination bank notes under section 2(d) includes a one thousand rupee bank note. 5. The definition of high denomination bank notes under section 2(d) includes a one thousand rupee bank note. 5. Under section 7 it is provided as follows: “7(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, any high denomination bank note owned by a person other than a bank or Government treasury may be exchanged after the 16th day of January, 1978, only on tender of the note: (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx (e) xx xx xx (f) Were the high denomination Bank note is owned by any other person, by that person or by some person competent to act on his behalf; (2) Every person desiring to tender for exchange a high denomination bank note under this section shall prepare in the form set out in the Schedule three copies of a declaration signed by him giving in full the particulars required by that form an shall, not later than the 19th day of January, 1978, deliver such copies in person together with the high denomination bank notes he desires to exchange. (a) to either of the offices of the Reserve Bank at Bombay or to the sub-office, office or branch, as the case may bay, of that bank at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar, Calcutta, Gauhati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Madras, Nagpur, New Delhi and Patna; or (b) to the main office or branch of the State Bank at the headquarters of a district; or (c) to any other office of a public sector bank notified in this behalf by the Reserve Bank: Provided that if such person resides in a place not within convenient reach of any such office or branch, or if, by reason of age, infirmity or illness he is unable to attend threat, he may forward the high denomination bank notes he desires to exchange together with three copies of the declaration in respect thereof by insured post to the Reserve Bank at Bombay not later than 19th day of January, 1978. (3) Every declaration under this section shall for the purpose of identifying the person making it, be attested by the manager or other person in charge of the bank, if any, with which he maintains an account, or by a salaried Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace or a Police Officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police. (4) Unless it appears that the declaration has not been complete in all material particulars, the Reserve Bank, the State Bank or any bank notified under Clause (c) of sub-section (2), as the case may be, to which an application for exchange of high denomination bank notes is made under this section, shall pay the exchange value of the said notes for credit to a properly introduced account of the owner or the declarant, as the case may be, with any scheduled bank. Provided that: (5) Where it appears that the declaration has not been completed in all material particulars, the Reserve Bank ........ to which such application as aforesaid is made shall, unless the declarant is able to supply the omission without delay, refuse to accept and pay for the bank notes to which the declaration relates, and where it does so refuse, shall return one copy of the declaration to the declarant after entering therein the date on which it is presented and shall refer the matter to the Central Government to which it shall forward a copy of the declaration with a brief statement of the reasons for refusing to pay for the bank notes. (6) The Central Government may require any declarant referred to in sub-section (5) to amplify his declaration to such extent and in respect of such particulars as it thinks fit and may, unless the declarant is able to fully comply with such requirement, refuse for reasons to be recorded in writing, to sanction the exchange of the high denomination bank notes to which the declaration relates. (7) The Central Government or any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf may, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, extend in any case or class of cases the period during which high denomination bank note may be tendered for exchange under this section. (7) The Central Government or any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf may, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, extend in any case or class of cases the period during which high denomination bank note may be tendered for exchange under this section. (8)(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, any person who fails to apply for exchange of any high denomination bank notes within the time provided in that section may tender the notices together with the declaration required under that section to the Reserve Bank at any of the places specified in Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of that section, not later than the 24th day of January, 1978 together with the statement explaining the reasons for his failure to apply within the said time limits. Provided that (2) The Reserve Bank may, if satisfied after making such inquiries as it may consider necessary that the reasons for the failure to submit the notes for exchange within the time provided in section 7 are genuine, pay the value of the notes in the manner specified in sub-section (4) of that section. (3) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Reserve Bank to pay the value of the notes under sub-section (2) may prefer an appeal to the Central Government within fourteen days of the communication of such refusal to him. 6. Thus under the provisions of section 7 a party in possession of high denomination notes and desiring to exchange them was required to fill in a form set out in the schedule to the said Act and submit the notes along with the form, inter alia, to the Reserve Bank on or before 19 January, 1978. Unless it appeared to the Reserve Bank that the declaration was not complete in all material particulars it was obligatory on the Reserve Bank to pay the exchange value of the notes. However, where it appeared to the Reserve Bank that the declaration was not complete in all material particulars it could refuse to pay the exchange value of the notes and it was required in such cases to refer the matter to the Central Government as set out under sub-section (5) of section 7. 7. However, where it appeared to the Reserve Bank that the declaration was not complete in all material particulars it could refuse to pay the exchange value of the notes and it was required in such cases to refer the matter to the Central Government as set out under sub-section (5) of section 7. 7. The form of the declaration which is set out in the Schedule to the Act requires a party, inter alia, to fill in Columns 15 and 16 which are as follows: 15. Reasons for keeping the amount in cash in notes of such high denominations. 16. When and from what source did the bank notes come into possession? 7-A. Section 7 requires the high denomination notes along with the declaration to be submitted to the Reserve Bank not later than 19th January, 1978. Under section 8 however, it is permissible to submit such notes and declaration within an extended time limit, not later than 24th January, 1978, provided there are sufficient reasons set out in a statement which accompanies such late submission explaining the reasons for failure to apply within the time limit set out in section 7. If the Reserve Bank is satisfied after making enquiries that the reasons for the failure to submit the notes for exchange within the time provided in section 7 are genuine, then it may proceed to apply the provisions of section 7 sub-section (4), i.e. it may then scrutinise, whether the declaration is complete in all material particulars. If it is complete, then it may exchange the notes for their value. If the Reserve Bank is not so satisfied with the reasons for the failure to submit the declaration form and the notes for exchange within the prescribed time it may refuse to pay the value of the notes. In such a case the aggrieved party has a right to prefer an appeal to the Central Government under section 8 of sub-section (3). 8. The Secretary of Shree Mahakali Trust filled in a declaration form prescribed under the said Act on 19th January, 1978 and got it attested by a Special Executive Magistrate on 19th January, 1978 as provided under section 7 sub-section (3). This declaration was in respect of 81 notes of Rs. 1000/- each. 8. The Secretary of Shree Mahakali Trust filled in a declaration form prescribed under the said Act on 19th January, 1978 and got it attested by a Special Executive Magistrate on 19th January, 1978 as provided under section 7 sub-section (3). This declaration was in respect of 81 notes of Rs. 1000/- each. Under Columns 15 and 16 of the declaration where the declarant is required to furnish reasons for keeping the amount in cash in notes of such high denomination and is also required to disclose when and from what source the bank notes came into his possession, the declarant has stated. “Received donation from Smt. Divaliben Raghunath Doshi Rs. 1,00,001/-.” Although this declaration is said to have been made on 19th January, 1978, the declaration along with 81 notes of Rs. 1000/- was submitted to the Reserve Bank on 23rd January, 1978. The Secretary of the said Trust has annexed a letter dated 23rd January, 1977 to the said declaration which is as follows: “As we could not get entry inside the Reserve Bank buildings due to long queue on 19th and also as our Trustee was not keeping well on 20th and 21st January, 1978, a such we are filing the declaration today and are requesting you to kindly accept the same.” The original declaration submitted to the Reserve Bank has been produced in Court and it bears the stamp “scrutinised the found prima facie in order”. This has been subsequently scored out in red. Thereafter in the course of the correspondence exchange between the parties Reserve Bank of India asked for further particulars relating to the information supplied in Columns 15 and 16 viz. relating to the donation made by Diwaliben to the trust. 9. Ultimately by an order dated 28th November, 1979 the Reserve Bank of India rejected the claim of the said trust. The order of the Reserve Bank rejecting the claim of the said trust was forwarded to the petitioners by the Reserve Bank under a letter of 29th November, 1979. In para 3 of the said letter attention of the petitioner was invited to sub-section (3) of section 8 of the said Act and the petitioner were informed that if they so desire they could prefer an appeal to the Central Government against the said order within 14 days of the receipt of the said order. In para 3 of the said letter attention of the petitioner was invited to sub-section (3) of section 8 of the said Act and the petitioner were informed that if they so desire they could prefer an appeal to the Central Government against the said order within 14 days of the receipt of the said order. The name and address of the official to whom an appeal may be forwarded was also furnished in the letter. 10. The petitioners accordingly filed an appeal before the Central Government from the said order. The appeal of the petition has been rejected by the Central Government under an order dated 15th April, 1980. Before the rejection of the Appeal the petitioners were given a show cause notice by the Central Government and they were heard in the matter. The petitioners have challenged these orders in the present petition. 11. The first submission made by the petitioners relates to the power of refusal under section 7 sub-sections (4) and (5) of the said Act. The petitioner contend that once a declaration has been furnished which is complete in all material particulars the Reserve Bank is bound to pay the exchange value of the notes in question. It has no power to make further enquiries relating to the material particulars so furnished. It is the contention of the petitioners that they furnished a declaration which was complete in all material particulars. Hence the Reserve Bank had no power to refuse to pay the value of the notes tendered along with the declaration. 12. This contention has to be examined in the light of the provisions of section 7 of the said Act. Under section 7(4) an obligation is cast upon the Reserve Bank to pay the exchange value of the notes unless it appears to the Reserve Bank that the declaration is not complete in all material particulars. Under section 7(5) the declarant can be asked to supply the omissions without delay, where the declaration is to complete in all material particulars. If however, the declarant does not supply the material particulars, the Reserve Bank can refuse to pay the value of the notes. Hence the power of refusal given to the Reserve Bank under section 7(5) can be exercised in cases where all material particulars are not furnished in the declaration. 13. If however, the declarant does not supply the material particulars, the Reserve Bank can refuse to pay the value of the notes. Hence the power of refusal given to the Reserve Bank under section 7(5) can be exercised in cases where all material particulars are not furnished in the declaration. 13. Now under section 3 of the said Act all high denomination bank notes have ceased to be legal tender on the expiry of 16th January, 1978. Under section 4 there is a prohibition on the transfer of possession of such notes after the expiry of 16th January, 1978. Hence under Column 16 it is necessary for the declarant to disclose when the Bank notes in question came into his possession. He is also required to declare the source. In the earlier Column 15 reasons for keeping the amount in cash in notes of such high denomination is also required to be stated. Both these columns are material for ascertaining whether the notes were in fact, in possession of the declarant prior to 16th January, 1978. In order to ascertain thee vital particulars, the Reserve Bank can make enquiries. It is true that the Reserve Bank is not empowered to make an extensive enquiry in order to ascertain whether the declarant has paid his tax liability or not, but the Reserve Bank is required to make an enquiry in order to satisfy itself that the declarant was in possession of the said notes as on 16th January, 1978. 14. This interpretation of the provisions of section 7 finds support in a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of (Smt. Bimladevi v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1983 Delhi 189. The same act and provisions were under consideration by the Delhi High Court in that case. The Delhi High Court has observed as follows: “It is true that it is not for the authorities under the Demonetisation Act to go into the sources from where the notes were acquired, but the authorities are entitled to know and to satisfy themselves as to whether the declarant was a person who held those notes on the date when the Ordinance was promulgated or whether those notes had come into his possession after 16th January, 1978. If the declarant had acquired those notes after 16th January, 1978 then such a declarant would not be entitled to exchange the same. If the declarant had acquired those notes after 16th January, 1978 then such a declarant would not be entitled to exchange the same. In the case of (The Trust of Temple of Shree Laxminarayan Dev v. Reserve Bank of India)2, being Special Civil Application No. 2262 of 1979 a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of S.H. Sheth and S.B. Majumdar, JJ.: by its judgment dated 4th September, 1979 also held that the Reserve Bank has the right to make an inquiry and find out whether the notes were in possession of the holder before they ceased to be legal tender or whether they came into his possession after they ceased to be legal tender. There are observations to a similar effect in another judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 29th August, 1979 in Special Civil Application No. 964 of 1979 (Shri Pragati Mandal v. The Union of India and others)3. 15. The contention, therefore, of the petitioners that the Reserve Bank had no power to make any enquiry in respect of the particulars furnished cannot be accepted. The Reserve Bank does have a power to make an enquiry in order to ascertain whether the notes were in the possession of the declarant on 16th January, 1978 or whether they came into his possession after 16th January, 1978. The reliance placed by the petitioners, therefore, on the stamp put by the Reserve Bank on the declaration form to the effect that the declaration form is “scrutinised and found prima facie in order” is misconceived. Even the stamp merely says that the form is found prima facie to be in order. The Reserve Bank was entitled to ask for further particulars relating to Columns 15 and 16 in order to ascertain when the trust came into possession of 81 notes of Rs. 1000/- each. 16. From the particulars which have been furnished by the trust to the Reserve Bank it appears that according to the petitioners M/s. Gujarat Savings withdrew a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- from the United Bank of India Limited on 13th December, 1977 under a cheque addressed to “self”. M/s. Gujarat Savings is a sole proprietary concern of Balwant R. Doshi. He is the son of Divaliben R. Doshi. The two trustees of the Mahakali Trust are two other sons of Divaliben R. Doshi. The sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- from the United Bank of India Limited on 13th December, 1977 under a cheque addressed to “self”. M/s. Gujarat Savings is a sole proprietary concern of Balwant R. Doshi. He is the son of Divaliben R. Doshi. The two trustees of the Mahakali Trust are two other sons of Divaliben R. Doshi. The sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was withdrawn in the form of one thousand notes of Rs. 100/- each and one hundred and twenty five notes of Rs. 1000/- each. According to the petitioners, on 13th December, 1977 Balvant R. Doshi handed over to his mother Divaliben a sum of Rs. 1,00,001/- to enable her to make a donation to the said trust. Of this amount Rs. 81,000/- consisted of 81 notes of Rs. 1000/- each. According to the petitioners this amount was lent by Balvant R. Doshi to his mother, Devaliben. She in turn gave a donation of Rs. 1,00,001/- to the said Trust on 10th January, 1978. This donation has been acknowledged by the Trust by a letter dated 16th January, 1978. 17. The Reserve Bank has disbelieved the story put forward by the petitioners. It has pointed out that there is no satisfactory explanation given as to the manner in which the amount was paid by Balvant R. Doshi to his mother. It has held that if the amount was only a loan it is difficult to envisage how such an amount could be repaid by Divaliben, when she is only a housewife and has no source of income. If it was a gift, no gift tax was paid. This difficulty however, is only incidental. 18. There is no material or any documentary evidence to show when the amount was handed over by Balvant R. Doshi to Divaliben. There is also no document or the evidence to show when the amount was paid by Divaliben to the Trust and in what manner. Normally if such a large amount is paid in cash as a donation to a Trust, a receipt would be immediately given by the Trust to the donor. There is no such receipt of 10th January, 1978 when the case is said to have been handed over to the Trust. There is only a recording letter from the Trust dated 16th January 1978, which is the date on which the said ordinance was promulgated. 19. There is no such receipt of 10th January, 1978 when the case is said to have been handed over to the Trust. There is only a recording letter from the Trust dated 16th January 1978, which is the date on which the said ordinance was promulgated. 19. The Trust also did not have any bank account either on 10th January, 1978 or on 16th January, 1978. The large amount received by the Trust in cash was kept with them by the trustee who are the sons of the donor. A bank account was opened by the trust only on 23rd January, 1978, when out of the alleged donation of Rs. 1 Lakh and one (Rs. 1,00,001/-) a sum of Rs. 19,000/- was deposited by the trustees in the Bank account. In these circumstances if the Reserve Bank has come to a conclusion that there are no sufficient particulars given in the declaration to show that the trust was in possession of the Bank notes in question on 16th January, 1978, the order of the Reserve Bank cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. 20. There is one other circumstance also which is pointed out by the respondents in the course of argument viz. in the declaration form under column 19: “If payment is to be made into a bank account full details of the bank account, the trust has given the name of Swastik Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Bombay-2. Below the name of the bank, the bank Account No. 1587 is mentioned. This declaration is supposed to have been made on 19th January, 1978 but the Bank account was opened only on 23rd January, 1978 and the number of the Bank account must have been added in the declaration form only on 23rd January, 1978 when the declaration was submitted to the Reserve Bank. In short, the trust took advantage of the so-called delay in submitting the application in order to pen a bank account. 21. Since the declaration and the notes were submitted to the Reserve Bank on 23rd January, 1978 the provisions of section 8 also come into operation. Under section 8 sub-section (1) the petitioners were required to explain the reason for failure to apply on or before 19th January, 1978. In the letter annexed to that declaration the petitioners have given two reasons. Under section 8 sub-section (1) the petitioners were required to explain the reason for failure to apply on or before 19th January, 1978. In the letter annexed to that declaration the petitioners have given two reasons. They have said that there was a heavy rush on the Reserve Bank and they could not get entry to the Reserve Bank on 19th. The second reason they have given is that their trustee was not keeping well on 20th and 21st January, 1978. As a result of certain queries which were raised by the Reserve Bank, the petitioners furnished a medical certificate in respect of the trustee who was said to be unwell which states that he was suffering from cough, cold and fever on 20th and 21st January, 1978. The petitioners have also stated that the other trustee was out of Bombay on 20th and 21st January. 22. The explanation for delay given by the petitioners has not been accepted by the Reserve Bank. In its order the bank has stated that the ordinance was promulgated on 16th January, 1983, 17th January, 1978 was a Bank holiday. On 18th and 19 of January, 1978 there were several places where the declaration and the Bank notes could have been tendered and the Reserve Bank has remained open till 9 p.m. in order to accept the forms and the notes. The order also sets out that the trustee's not being well or one of the trustee being out of Bombay cannot be considered as a reason for filing a declaration as late as 23rd January when in fact the Secretary of the Trust has the power to file the declaration and he had in fact signed the declaration and filed it. The secretary could have filed the declaration at any time even after 19th January. The reasons given by the Reserve Bank in its order for not considering the explanation for delay as genuine under section 8 sub-section (2) are accepted and approved of in the appellate order of the Central Government under section 8 sub-section (3). The appellate order also approved of the reasons given in the order of the Reserve Bank for refusal under section 7 sub-section (4). 23. The appellate order also approved of the reasons given in the order of the Reserve Bank for refusal under section 7 sub-section (4). 23. In my view the orders passed under section 8 sub-section (2) rejecting the explanation given by the petitioner for delay in submitting the declaration and the notes cannot be considered as perverse or unresonable. The grounds for rejection set out in the order appear to be valid grounds. In any case the reasoning of the Reserve Bank cannot be considered as perverse or so unreasonable as to invite the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The same is the case with the appellate order passed by the Central Government under sections 8 sub-section (3). 24. It is contended by the petitioners that the Reserve Bank had passed an order under two separate sections. The order passed by the Reserve Bank was under section 7 sub-sections (4) and (5) as also it was an order under section 8 sub-section (2). In other words it was an order of refusal to condone delay as also it was an order of refusal on merits on the ground that the declarant did not furnish all material particulars. From an order under section 8 sub-section (2) an appeal lies to the Central Government under section 8 sub-section (3). Such an appeal was in fact preferred and was rejected. 25. In respect of the order under section 7 sub-sections (4) and (5), however, the petitioners contend: i) That the Reserve Bank has no power to refuse to pay the value of the notes. If the Reserve Bank is not satisfied with the particulars which are given in the declaration form the Reserve Bank can only forward the declaration to the Central Government and it is the Central Government which must pass an order refusing to pay the value of the notes. This first contention is not supported by the language of section 7 sub-section (5). Under sub-section (5) it is in terms provided that the Reserve Bank shall, unless the declarant is able to supply the information without delay, refuse to accept and pay the bank notes. In other words it has the power to refuse to accept and pay the amount. Under sub-section (5) it is in terms provided that the Reserve Bank shall, unless the declarant is able to supply the information without delay, refuse to accept and pay the bank notes. In other words it has the power to refuse to accept and pay the amount. It is, however, required to refer the matter to the Central Government and to annexe a brief statement of the reasons for refusing to pay the amount of the bank notes. Under section 7 sub-section (5) therefore, it is not necessary for the declarant to move the Central Government, in appeal. The Reserve Bank itself is required to forward the declaration to the Central Government for its consideration. But the Reserve Bank has certainly a power of refusal. It is not required merely to forward papers to the Central Government. ii) The second contention of the petitioners is to the effect that the provisions of section 7 sub-section (5) were not complied with in the present case because the order passed by the Reserve Bank under section 7 sub-sections (4) and (5) was not forwarded by the Reserve Bank to the Central Government for its consideration. Hence it is the contention of the petitioners that the Central Government's order is vitiated. This submission also cannot be accepted. It i true that the order under section 7 sub-section (5) was not forwarded by the Reserve Bank to the Central Government in the manner prescribed in sub-section (5). But in fact, the entire order of the Reserve Bank was before the Central Government for its consideration. The Central Government had also issued a notice to the petitioners asking them to show cause. The Central Government considered the contentions of the petitioners on merits. Thereafter it has passed an order rejecting the appeal on both the aspects which were present before the Central Government and were considered by it. No prejudice, therefore has been caused to the petitioners in the present case and the order of the Central Government is not vitiated in any manner. At the highest, non-compliance with the procedural requirements of section 7 sub-section (5) is only an irregularity which does not vitiate the order passed by the Central Government. 26. No prejudice, therefore has been caused to the petitioners in the present case and the order of the Central Government is not vitiated in any manner. At the highest, non-compliance with the procedural requirements of section 7 sub-section (5) is only an irregularity which does not vitiate the order passed by the Central Government. 26. In the case before the Delhi High Court (Bimladevi v. Union of India) a similar situation had arisen and the Delhi High Court also held that since all the contentions were raised before the Central Government, both in respect of delay as well as in respect of the merits of the declaration, and since the petitioner had been given an opportunity to present his case on both aspects of the case, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. 27. It was submitted by Mr. R.J. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that the provisions of section 7 sub-section (5) are applicable only to those cases where a declaration has been submitted along with the notes within the prescribed period under section 7 i.e. on or before 19th January, 1978. The provisions of section 7 sub-section (5) do not apply in cases where the declaration has been submitted after 19th January, 1978. When the declaration is filed late under section 8 the provisions of section 7 sub-section (5) do not apply. This contention cannot be accepted. In the first place, the provisions of section 7 sub-sections (4) and (5) have to be read together. Sub-section (4) provide for cases where the declaration is complete in all material particulars. The Reserve Bank in such a case is under an obligation to pay the value of the notes submitted. Sub-section (4) begins with the words “unless it appears that the declaration has not been complete in all material particulars.” Hence when the declaration is not complete in material particulars, the Reserve Bank is not under an obligation to pay the value of the notes. In such a case sub-section (5) gives to the Reserve Bank the right to refuse to accept and pay for the Bank notes. Sub-sections (4) and (5) therefore, have to be read together in order to ascertain the powers of the Reserve Bank in relation to the notes submitted with the declaration. In such a case sub-section (5) gives to the Reserve Bank the right to refuse to accept and pay for the Bank notes. Sub-sections (4) and (5) therefore, have to be read together in order to ascertain the powers of the Reserve Bank in relation to the notes submitted with the declaration. Under section 8 sub-section (2), in case where the Reserve Bank accepts as genuine the reasons given by the declaration for failure to apply for exchange of such notes within the time prescribed, the provisions of section 7 sub-section (4) are expressly attracted i.e. where the explanation for delay is accepted the Reserve Bank has to proceed to exercise its powers under section 7 sub-section (4). The full power of the Reserve Bank is set out not merely in sub-section (4) but also in sub-section (5) which has to be read along with sub-section (4). If sub-section (4) were to be read in isolation the Reserve Bank would only be under an obligation to pay for the exchange value of the notes where the declaration is complete in all material particulars. Its powers in a case where the declaration is not complete in material particulars are not spelt out in sub-section (4) at all. They are to be found only in sub-section (5). If sub-section (5) of section 7 is not applicable to delayed applications under section 8, the result would be that in cases where the notes are submitted late under section 8, the Reserve Bank would not get any power to refuse to give the exchange value of the goods even if the declaration is incomplete. This would be an absurd interpretation. In any case, sub-section (4) of section 7 impliedly gives the Reserve Bank a right of refusal as the language used is “unless it appears that the declaration is not complete in all material particulars.” In cases, therefore, where the Reserve Bank passes an order in favour of the declarant under section 8(2) condoning delay, it is required to pass further orders under section 7(4) and (5). In the present case however, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by reason of the fact that the Reserve Bank did not refer the matter to the Central Government under section 7 sub-section (5) because the entire matter was in fact before the Central Government and was considered by it when it passed the impugned order. In the premises the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged with costs. Petition dismissed. -----