1994 Supreme(Bom) 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
Dr. E. Da Silva A.P. Shah, JJ.
Lalit Sehgal.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Goa others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 92 of 1994 with W.P. No. 178 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 185, of 1994, decided on 13-12-1994.
Advocates appeared :
J. Dias with Mrs. Maria Simon, for the petitioner.
J.E. Coelho Pereira, A.G. with J. Godinho, Addl.G., for respondent Nos. 1 2.

Headnote:Article 4-See Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 (as amended by 1992 Act) Section 13-A.

       GOA, DAMAN AND DIU PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT, 1976

       (As amended by 1992 Act) Section 13-A-Conslilution of India, Article 4-Scope of.

       Before examining the petitioners claim which is mainly based on the doctrine of legitimate exception, the Court will dispose of the challenge to the validity of Section 13-A of the Act, which is not seriously pressed by Counsel for the petitioners, as it has been rightly pointed out by the respondents in their affidavit that the restriction has been imposed with the object of confining gambling activities as far as possible to the foreign tourists and people from higher income group, which cannot at all be termed as arbitrary or irrational so as to be violative of Article 14. The said restriction is based on a valid foundation and it is not permissible to question the legislative wisdom in imposing such restriction, which has a nexus with the object of the said Act of 1976 which was enacted with a view to prohibit gambling. Similarly, the challenge to the definition of "Five Star Hotel" should not detain the Court any longer since it has been categorically stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the Director of Tourism shall be guided by the standards laid down by the Tourism Department of the Central Government. The challenge raised by the petitioners by taking recourse to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is also required to be rejected as the words "trade" or "business" or "commerce" should not be read in their widest amplitude so as to exclude gambling for there are certain activities which can under no circumstance be regarded as trade or commerce although the usual forms and instruments are employed therein.

       Prior to introduction of the Amendment Act the electronic amusement/slot machines were prohibited by virtue of the provisions of the Act. The amended Section 13-A for the first time empowered the Government to authorise any game of electronic amusement/slot machines; provided they are fixed in Five Star Hotels and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. In exercise of the powers under Section 13-A, the Government has issued the Principal Notification laying down the terms and conditions for obtaining a licence including the period of licence and the licence fee to be payable by the licensee. It was provided in clause (iv) of the said Notification that the total number of electronic amusement/slot machines shall not exceed 200 in the entire State of Goa and it was further provided that no single licensee shall hold a licence for more than 20 machines. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that the licence period is being curtailed or any term or condition of the licence is being sought to be changed to their detriment. But the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the total number of machines as fixed in clause (iv) of Principal Notification is not liable to be changed till the expiry of the petitioners licence. According to Mr. Dias, the petitioners applications were based on the fact that only 200 machines could be installed and operated and they worked out their economics and projections on that assumption. Therefore, says, petitioners Counsel it is not open to the Government to arbitrarily and irrationally increase the number of machines from 200 to 400 during the period of the licence contrary to a legitimate expectation that terms and conditions of the Principal Notification, especially such as would affect the petitioners economic interests, would not be altered as to prejudice them:

       Normally, a legitimate expectation would arise when an authority by representation or past practice aroused expectation, which it would be within its power to fulfil. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits. Again the decision taken by the authorities must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest because the protection of legitimate expectation does not require fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. As observed by Brennan, J. the notion of legitimate expectation is not the key which unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it ought not unlock the gate which shuts the Court out of review on the merits. Then there is one more important limitation on the application of doctrine of legitimate expectation and this is the doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved.