Review maintainable after validating statute upheld; earlier refund order vacated because its legal foundation had changed.

The earlier refund direction rested on the premise that the Validation Act was ultra vires, but that foundation changed after the validating legislation was later upheld as constitutionally valid. In that situation, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the State's review petition on technical grounds, because the basis of the original order had been altered by the subsequent judicial determination. The review petition was therefore maintainable and should have been heard. The order refusing review was set aside, the review was allowed, and the refund direction was vacated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the State's review petition after the validity of the Validation Act had subsequently been upheld, and whether the refund order passed earlier could be set aside.

Analysis: The earlier judgment directing refund proceeded on the basis that the Validation Act was ultra vires. That premise had later changed when the validity of the validating legislation was upheld. In that situation, the review petition could not be rejected on technical grounds, because the foundation of the original order had been altered by the subsequent judicial determination of the validating statute's constitutionality.

Conclusion: The review petition was maintainable and ought to have been entertained. The order refusing review was set aside, the review was allowed, and the refund direction was vacated.

---