ORDER :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. These review petitions have been filed by the State who was a 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 It is pursuant to the right reserved in favour of them by the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLPs as withdrawn, to file review petition before this Court {vide order dated 26.07.2019 in respect of Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016, Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2016 and Writ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 Rules with reference to the date of commencement of operation of Cinema Hall/Multiplex was never adjudicated by the Bench while finalizing the matter.

3. Coming to the sequence of events, the claim for granting benefits under the 1982 Rules to the writ petitioners was turned down by the authorities concerned which was sought to be challenged by filing Writ Petition (T) No. 1364 of 2014 {Avinash Developers Private Limited & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others} wherein a declaration was sought that the Petitioners were eligible and entitled for the benefits/grants/incentives in the form of subsidy under the 1982 Rules. The writ petition came to be allowed as per judgment dated 22.01.2016 whereby the impugned orders were quashed making it clear that the Petitioners 1 and 2, being the owners of the Mall/Multiplex, were entitled to avail the benefit conferred under the Rules of 1982 with effect from 04.03.2010. Being aggrieved of the said direction, the State preferred an appeal in respect of the benefit granted to the 1st and 2nd Petitioners while the 3rd Petitioner sought to challenge it for denying the benefit, besides challenging the vires of the 1982 Rules as per Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016.

4. It is seen that all the above matters were heard and finalized by the same Bench on the same date i.e. on 16.11.2018. A detailed judgment was passed in Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016 making a threadbare analysis to find out the meaning of the word ‘Swami’, which in fact is not defined under the 1982 Rules. It was however sought to be connected with reference to the quantum of benefit payable under the Rules by way of refund of entertainment tax paid/payable in the context of definition of the term ‘Proprietor’ under Section 2(f) and such other provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (for short ‘the 1936 Act’) as adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh.

5. Reference was also made to various other provisions of the 1936 Act, particularly Section 3 casting a duty upon the proprietor to satisfy the tax; Section 9(a) of the 1936 Act, provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 {for short ‘the 1952 Act’} and the Chhattisgarh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972 {for short, ‘the 1972 Rules’}. Rule 2(g) of the 1972 Rules which defines the term ‘licencee’/‘holder of licence’ (which includes the Manager or 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, tha