JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent and at the request of the petitioner appearing in person and learned Advocate General. Learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent.

3. Petitioner, who appeared in person, seeks to challenge in this Writ Petition the constitutional validity of Section 13D(e) and 13G read with Section 2(7) and 2(8) of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976 (for the sake of brevity ‘the Act’).

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that Section 13A was inserted by way of amendment dated 24.08.1992, thereby empowering the government to permit the conduct of any game of electronic amusement or slot machine in Five Star Hotels. The said Act was further amended on 11.09.1996 and a further clause to Section 13A of the Act was added thereby empowering the government to permit the conduct of such table games and gaming on board in vessels offshore as may be notified. Section 2(A) was added by way of amendment and “Gaming Commissioner” was defined. “Tourist” and “Tourist permit” are defined under Section 2(7) and Section 2(8), respectively. The said Act was further amended on 01.02.2020 and Section 13(G) was inserted in the said Act. This section makes it an offence for any person to enter such a place or area for gaming, designated by the government by notification, without a valid tourist permit.

5. The petitioner contends that these provisions, inserted by way of amendment to the said Act, violate Article 14 of the Constitution as they discriminate between “tourists” and “non-tourists” in terms of the permissibility of entry into places where games, as authorized under Section 13A, are actually conducted and are consequently void as per Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner made it clear that he has not filed any public interest litigation but is agitating his personal rights. Petitioner contends that he is desirous of visiting the casinos whose activities have commenced but is barred from doing so on account of Section 13(G) of the Act, which restricts the entry of any person other than a tourist or the holder of tourist permit. In other words, any person who is a permanent resident or is domiciled in the State of Goa is barred entry to “casinos” or the places or areas where gaming activities are actually conducted as authorized under Section 13A of the Act. Petitioner does not qualify criteria of ‘tourist’ since he is a permanent resident of Goa.

7. The petitioner submits that the impugned provisions contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India by prohibiting access of persons, who are permanent residents of Goa. The distinction being made between tourists and non-tourists miserably fails the test of reasonable classification which must be fulfilled by any classification to withstand the rigors of Article 14. He contends that what is good for tourists cannot be bad for the Goans or non-tourists. He submits that the classification is not based on any intelligible differentia and the differentia has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He submits that the object is itself discriminatory in this case.

8. Petitioner relied on several decisions in support of his contentions and the relevant decisions are proposed to be considered in the course of this judgment and order.

9. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General, at the outset, pointed out that the activity of gambling cannot be equated with any trade or commerce to assert any fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Section 19(1)(g). Even this freedom can be restricted by law, by imposing a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. There is no right vested where the business is dangerous or immoral; such a business may be absolutely prohibited or may be required to be licensed. There is no unfettered right to carry on busine