ORDER : These two matters i.e., Writ Petition No.1663/2018 and Review Petition No.236/2018 have been considered together for the reasons and circumstances indicated infra and are taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. In Writ Petition No.1661/2018 filed before this Court, the Petitioner sought a declaration to the effect that in view of the amendment of the provisions of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, by the Amendment Act of 2013, enhancing the period of licenses from three years to five years, the period of licenses of the Review Petitioner earlier granted, automatically stood enhanced to five years. This contention was considered and rejected by this Court in its Order dated 21.06.2018, inter alia after holding that the amendment in question would not enure to the benefit of the licenses already granted before the amendment. In Review Petition No.236/2018, Petitioner seeks review of this order. 3. On the other hand, Writ Petition No.1663/2018 is founded on the same grounds as were taken in Writ Petition No.1661/2018, which was disposed of by the Order in Review and in this petition too, the Petitioner seeks direction to the Respondents to extend the validity of its license for a period of five years in view of the aforesaid Amendment to the Act of 2011. Obviously, the relief claimed in Writ Petition No.1663/2018 could be granted only if the earlier Order dated 21.06.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.1661/2018 is reviewed and hence, the present petition too stands covered by the said order. 4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Review Petition No.236/2018 at length and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner in support of his contention that there is automatic extension of license period from three years to five years since the 2013 Amendment Act is retrospective in operation, banks upon the following Rulings: (a) AIR (2004) 8 SCC 1 ; (b) ILR 2014 KAR 4257; and (c) AIR 1952 SC 324 ; (d) (2005) 7 SCC 396 . 6. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader makes submission for sustaining the Order in review inter alia contending that the ground now sought to be urged has already been treated and rejected by this Court in the judgment in review and therefore, such a ground cannot be pressed into service in a Review Petition. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. We have perused the Review Petition, the Writ Petition and the Order sought to be reviewed. We have also perused the papers of the connected Writ Petition. 8. Having heard the matter, we are not convinced that the decisions cited by the Review Petitioner support the proposition and its invokability. A brief discussion as to what is decided in those cases is as under: (a) Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Others reported in AIR (2004) 8 SCC 1 : this case related to amendment of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 by Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1994 whereby, any person having more than two living children was disqualified on and from 05.04.1995, from being a Member of a Municipality. The Apex Court after referring to various Authoritative pronouncements made by English and Indian Courts reiterated certain principles and factors for deciding whether an amendment is prospective or retrospective in operation. This Court having applied the similar principles and factors, has made the Order in review holding that the amendment in question is prospective in operation. (b) The Hassan Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited and Others v. State of Karnataka, Department of Cooperative Societies and Others reported in ILR 2014 KAR 4257: this case relates to Amendment Act, 2013 whereby, inter alia Section 28 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, was amended by introducing Section 28A(4) whereby, the term of office of the elected members of the Committee was enlarged from three years to five years in terms of 97th Amendment to the Constitution of India introducing Articles 243Z series. There was abundant intrinsic material available in the Amendment Act itself to hold it retrospective in operation and that the legislative intent was apparent as to extension of the tenure of the existing Committee also. No such things being available in the Karnataka Stone Crushers Amendment Act, 2013, this Ruling does not come to the aid of the Review Petitioner. There was abundant intrinsic material available in the Amendment Act itself to hold it retrospective in operation and that the legislative intent was apparent as to extension of the tenure of the existing Committee also. No such things being available in the Karnataka Stone Crushers Amendment Act, 2013, this Ruling does not come to the aid of the Review Petitioner. (c) Shamrao V Parulekar and others v. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and others reported in AIR 1952 SC 324 : this case related to Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952, for prolonging the life of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 for a further period of six months i.e., till 01.10.1952. The question inter alia was whether the said amendment also prolonged the period of detention. In that background, at Para 7 of the judgment, the Apex Court stated “…..the Rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity, as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the Amending Act at all……”. We fail to understand how the principle laid down in this case would advance the proposition put forth by the Review Petitioner. (d) Government of India and Others v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396 : this case at Paragraph 25 referred to what has been decided in Zile Singh Case supra and at Paragraph 26, the Apex Court held “We are not oblivious of the fact that in certain situations, the court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the legislature may construe the word "substitution" as an "amendment" having a prospective effect but such a question does not arise in the instant case”. Here again, the case does not come to the aid of the Review Petitioner. 9. The contentions urged in this Review Petition are already treated and rejected by us at Pages 8 and 9 of the Order dated 21.06.2018. Here again, the case does not come to the aid of the Review Petitioner. 9. The contentions urged in this Review Petition are already treated and rejected by us at Pages 8 and 9 of the Order dated 21.06.2018. The scope of review jurisdiction being restrictive, the said contention arguably could only be urged in Appeal inasmuch as the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 are held to be applicable to the review of the kind, we are now considering, in view of Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, which adopts inter alia the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mutatis mutandis. Therefore, the Review is misconceived. 10. The fact matrix of and the question of law involved in the connected case in W.P.No.1663/2018 (GMMMS) is similar to that of W.P.No.1661/2018 (GMMMS) which has been dismissed by the Order dated 21.06.2018 in Review. No new ground that supportively differentiates this case from the other is urged before us. In the above circumstances, this Review Petition lacking in merits, stands dismissed and further, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1663/2018 is also dismissed. No costs.