Review jurisdiction rejected where petitioners tried to rely on a previously undisclosed communication to reopen a writ decision.

Review jurisdiction cannot be used to introduce a communication that was not placed before the writ Court and was already within the petitioners' knowledge. The High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and no other sufficient ground for review, because the alleged material had not been annexed or relied on in the writ proceedings. It also clarified that the earlier writ direction was only to consider the refund claim in accordance with law, not to order a refund. The review petitions were therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition was maintainable on the basis of a subsequently produced communication of the resolution comment and whether any error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient ground for review was made out.

Analysis: The review was sought on the premise that the communication regarding the resolution comment had not been placed before the writ Court due to inadvertence. The record showed that no such document had been annexed or referred to in the writ proceedings, and the alleged communication was within the knowledge of the review petitioners at the relevant time. The attempt to introduce that material for the first time in review did not disclose any error of record or any basis for invoking review jurisdiction. The writ Court's earlier direction was not a direction for refund but only to consider the refund claim in accordance with law.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the review petitions were dismissed.

---