Parliamentary budget proposals do not override enacted law; review jurisdiction failed for lack of any apparent error.

A budget speech or proposal made in Parliament does not, by itself, become law. The operative law is the Finance Act as enacted, so any inconsistency is resolved by the statute rather than the proposal. On that settled principle, the Court found no error apparent on the record and no basis to invoke review jurisdiction. The review petition was therefore rejected on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to review of the earlier judgment on the ground that budgetary proposals accepted by Parliament constituted law and that the Finance Act, to the extent inconsistent with such proposals, should be ignored.

Analysis: The prayer for review was considered against the settled position that a speech or proposal made on the floor of Parliament does not itself become law. The operative law is what is enacted by Parliament in the Finance Act, and the Court found no error apparent on the record. No ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction was established.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on merits and was rejected against the petitioner.

---