ORDER 1. These appeals are against the judgment dated 4-12-1997 passed by the Gujarat High Court and an order dated 24-12-1997 dismissing the review petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance was promulgated on 16-1-1978. Under the Ordinance high-denomination banknotes of Rs 1000, Rs 5000, Rs 10,000 were demonetised with effect from 16-1-1978. All such high-denomination banknotes thus ceased to be legal tender. By virtue of Section 4 no transfer could take place ofhigh denomination note after 16-1-1978. However, it was provided that persons who had high-denomination banknotes could filedeclaration ingiven format and claim exchange of those notes provided such application was made before 19-1-1978. 3. The respondent Trust fileddeclaration on 19-1-1978. In that application it was inter alia stated against columns 15 and 16 as under: 15.Reasons for keeping the amount in This sum has come out of the cash in notes of such high box kept in the Jain temple. denominations 17.When and from what sources did the Out of the box after banknotes come into possession 16-10-1977 . 4. Under the Ordinance if the application was not complete in all material particulars then the Bank could refuse to accept and pay for the banknotes but it had then to refer the matter to the Central Government. TheCentral Government could then takedecision in the matter. 5. Instead of following the procedure laid down in the Ordinance, the Bank chose to refer the matter to the Income Tax Department. The IncomeTax Department made certain enquiries. It recorded statements. The Income Tax Department concluded that this was money which had been deposited in the box after the promulgation of the Ordinance. On that conclusion the Bank refused to pay. 6. The respondents filedwrit petition in the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment. The High Court has held that under the Ordinance the Income Tax Department had no role to play and was not authorized to investigate. The High Court has held that the conclusion of the Income Tax Department could not have been taken into consideration. 7. Whilst this reasoning may be correct, in our view, the correct course would have been for the High Court to have referred the matter to the Central Government who is the final authority to takedecision in this behalf. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order. 7. Whilst this reasoning may be correct, in our view, the correct course would have been for the High Court to have referred the matter to the Central Government who is the final authority to takedecision in this behalf. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order. We refer the matter to the Central Government to takedecision in this behalf. The Central Government shall before takingdecision give notice to the respondent Trust as well as to the Bank, hear them and then passreasoned order. We request the Central Government to dispose of the proceedings withinperiod of six months from today. 8. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.