Purposive reading of subsidy rules and limited review jurisdiction shape eligibility and reject re-argument of settled issues.

Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting a patent error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue matters already decided; the court found no such error and rejected the review challenge. In construing the subsidy rules, the term "Swami" was given a purposive meaning to include the licencee or occupier running the cinema hall or multiplex, not only the title owner, so the eligibility challenge failed. The deletion of the 10-kilometre rider in Rule 3 was treated as a relaxation of an eligibility restriction, allowing the remaining subsidy benefit to continue for otherwise eligible units already operating before the amendment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the earlier common judgment; (ii) whether the term "Swami" in the subsidy rules could include the licencee or occupier of the cinema hall or multiplex and not merely the actual owner; (iii) whether deletion of the 10-kilometre rider in Rule 3 operated so as to extend subsidy eligibility to units that had commenced operations before the amendment.

Issue (i): whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the earlier common judgment.

Analysis: Review is confined to correction of manifest error and cannot be used for a rehearing. The objections raised in review substantially repeated the earlier contentions and did not demonstrate any omission or patent mistake in the judgment already rendered. The scope of review was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown; the ground for review failed.

Issue (ii): whether the term "Swami" in the subsidy rules could include the licencee or occupier of the cinema hall or multiplex and not merely the actual owner.

Analysis: The subsidy scheme was read in the context of the entertainment-tax regime and the regulatory framework governing cinema halls and multiplexes. The expression "Swami" was not defined in the subsidy rules, and a restrictive reading confining it only to the title owner would defeat the purpose of the incentive scheme. A workable and purposive interpretation was adopted, taking into account the person actually running the cinema and bearing the statutory and financial obligations.

Conclusion: "Swami" was held to include the licencee or occupier as well as the actual owner; the review petitioners' challenge failed.

Issue (iii): whether deletion of the 10-kilometre rider in Rule 3 operated so as to extend subsidy eligibility to units that had commenced operations before the amendment.

Analysis: The amendment was treated as a relaxation of an eligibility restriction, not as the creation of a new burden. The earlier rider, if read as continuing after the amendment, would produce an incongruous result and undermine the incentive scheme. The benefit was intended to remain available for the continuing period after the amendment to those otherwise within the scheme, including units already operational before the amendment date.

Conclusion: The amendment removing the 10-kilometre restriction was not confined so narrowly as to deny the remaining benefit to eligible units that had commenced earlier; this contention of the review petitioners was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment disclosed no ground for review, and the review petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A review lies only for a patent error apparent on the face of the record, and a subsidy scheme intended to promote investment must receive a purposive construction that advances its object rather than defeating it by a narrow reading of eligibility conditions.

---