9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent in Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016, Writ Petition (T) No. 3 of 2017, Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2016 and Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2016. It is pursuant to the right reserved in favour of them by the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLPs as withdrawn, to file review petition before this Court {vide order dated 26.07.2019 in respect of Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016, Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2016 and Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2016, and order dated 23.08.2019 in respect of Writ Petition (T) No. 3 of 2017) against the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the matters as mentioned above, that they are before this Court again. 2. The subject matter relates to the eligibility to get the benefit of subsidy in terms of the Chhattisgarh Naye Cinemagharon Ya Multiplex Cinemagharon Ke Nirman Ko Protsahan Yojna Ke Sahayta Anudan Niyam, 1982 ('for short, 'the 1982 Rules'). The review petitions have been filed mainly on two grounds, firstly, contending that the writ petitioners are not coming within the purview of eligibility under the above Rules not being the 'Swamis' (Proprietor) which was not properly considered and secondly, that the scope of Rule 3 of the 1982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Managers nominated under Rule 108); the scope of Rule 108 of the 1972 Rules which stipulates that the licencee or his nominee to be present; the conditions and restrictions for the holder of licence (under Rule 101 and 120 of the 1972 Rules) etc. were also discussed. It was accordingly held by this Court, that the holder of a licence has a statutory status akin to a 'Swami'. It was also noted that the rule to grant subsidy was as per the policy notified by the State inviting the parties to make significant investment across the State and that in most of the cases, it would be the licencee who would be making the actual investment or running the movie halls or multiplexes sitting at the helm of the affairs, entering into agreement with the builders (who has provided the space for putting up such movie halls or multiplexes) and meeting the obligations as per the law. It was observed that to make the Rules workable, the word 'Swami' had to be understood in a constructive manner. The Bench held that the word 'Swami' cannot be confined to the 'actual owner' who has no concern with the running or exhibition of a Cinema Hall or a Multiplex, thus declaring that the word 'Swami' i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all the three cases are almost similar. The interpretation given to meaning of the term 'Swami' mentioned under the 1982 Rules, especially when the said term having not been defined therein, was with reference to meaning of the term 'proprietor' under Section 2(f) of the 1936 Act and after a thorough scrutiny with reference to the other relevant provisions in the 1982 Rules as discussed already. The subsidy payable to an eligible person/'Swami' is with reference to the refund of the entertainment tax collected in terms of the 1936 Act. It was after meticulous analysis of the various provisions, and after testing the scope and object of the relevant rules, that the finding was rendered by this Court, correctness of which is questioned in these review petitions. It is well settled that the scope of review is very much limited and the power cannot be invoked by this Court unless there is any "error apparent on the face of the record", as repeatedly made clear by the Apex Court including in the decision reported in Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.) {(1995) 1 SCC 170} and various subsequent judgments. What is the "error apparent on the face of the record" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .01.2016 (WP(T) No. 1364 of 2014} wherein assertion with regard to the prospectivity of the amendment and the contention that it was not having any retrospective operation has been dealt with. The law laid down by the Apex Court in various rulings such as State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Others; {(1981) 2 SCC 205}, Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Others; {(2002) 5 SCC 536} has been referred to, extracting the relevant portions. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge observed in paragraph 42 that Rule 3 of the 1982 Rules specifically says that, it shall apply to all Cinema Hall/Multiplex whose construction has started on or after 01.07.1991 and if the rider of not having existing cinema within radius of 10 KMs was still read with the Rules by accepting the plea of the Respondents that it will cease to apply after 04.03.2010, it would throw a very incongruous or contradictory situation. Paragraph 42 is extracted below for convenience of reference: "42. In the rules with which this Court is presently concerned, Rule 3 relating to applicability provides that it shall apply to all cinema/multiplex cinema whose construction has started on or after 1.7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited; {(2015) 1 SCC 1 paragraph 28} and Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board & Another; {(2012) 7 SCC 462 paragraph 32, 33 and 45} to support the contention that the amendment, unless specifically mentions, shall always be interpreted as 'prospective' and never retrospective. We have gone through the said judgments and note that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the law laid down therein. But on a closer scrutiny, it is to be noted that Vatika Township Private Limited (supra) was in respect of a provision for levy of surcharge on tax on undisclosed income. Similarly, in Purbanchal Cables (supra), it was in respect of interest on delayed payments as to the liability to pay interest on delayed payments under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. In both the cases, the 'prospectivity/retrospectivity' was analysed with reference to the additional/new burden imposed upon the assessee/party to enshoulder the same. After discussing the relevant provisions and the other rulings rendered by the Apex Court, it was he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this head as well. 14. Coming to the individual cases, in Review Petition No. 232 of 2020, Shri Sumit Nema, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Cinema Hall/Multiplex came to be operational only after 04.03.2010 (Raipur Multiplex commenced operation on 11.02.2011, Bilaspur Multiplex commenced the operation on 06.09.2012 and Bhilai Multiplex commenced the operation on 14.03.2014). This being the position, the Grounds 'A', 'B' and 'J' in the review petition with reference to the effect of amendment deleting the 10 KMs rider, are not applicable and as such, there is no tenable Ground for review. In respect of the other ground as to the ownership, no error apparent on the face of record is pointed out and as such, no interference is possible under this ground as well. We find considerable force in the said submission. 15. In respect of Review Petition No. 64 of 2020, Shri Sumit Nema, the learned Senior Counsel submits that Annexure P/1 rejection order was only on the ground of 'ownership', to deny the subsidy, which for the reasons mentioned above, is not applicable for want of any error apparent on the face of record. With regard to the amendment d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
