JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S. SONAK, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since substantially common issues of law and facts arise in all these petitions, the learned counsel for the parties agree that common judgment and order could dispose of the same. Accordingly, with consent, we treat Writ Petition No.92 of 2023 as the lead petition.

3. Under the provisions of the GOA PUBLIC GAMBLING ACT , 1976 (the said Act), the Petitioners have been issued licenses to operate offshore and onshore casinos in the State of Goa. These licenses are subject to several terms and conditions, including the payment of Annual Recurring Fees (A.R.F.) prescribed in the statutory notification issued under the said Act.

4. To combat Covid'19 Pandemic and for public safety and health concerns, lockdown orders were issued by the National and State Governments. For periods between 1/4/2020 and 31/10/2020 and 1/5/2021 and 30/9/2021 (closure periods), most of the business operations, including the Petitioners' casino operations, were ordered to be closed. By way of concession, the State Government deferred the issue of payments during periods affected by partial or even complete closure of casino operations by not insisting upon immediate payments.

5. However, upon considering the Petitioners' representations, the State, by its impugned order dtd. 25/11/2022 (published in the Official Gazette dtd. 1/12/2022), directed the Petitioners to pay the arrears of A.R.F. for the closure periods along with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The State's affidavit shows that this amount comes to 321, 66, 66, 668/- (Rupees Three? Hundred Twenty-One Crores Sixty-Six Lakhs Sixty Six Thousands Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight Only ). The Petitioners, on various grounds, contend that the State should not be permitted to insist upon recovery of arrears towards A.R.F. Hence, the present petitions.

6. PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS

6.1 Petitioners contend that the casino operations which the Petitioners undertake are "authorized games" under Sec. 13A of the said Act. Therefore, after paying necessary and prescribed license fees, they submit that the Petitioners have been issued licenses under the said Act.

6.2 Petitioners contend that their legal relationship with the State qua such casino operations in pursuance of such licenses is "purely contractual". Therefore provisions and principles of contract law would govern their relationship. Moreover, since Government is a contracting party, the principle of non- arbitrariness and fairness, as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, would also apply.

6.3 The Petitioners contend that the Government, after ordering the closure of casino operations during the above closure periods, cannot arbitrarily, unreasonably and unfairly insist that the Petitioners (licensees) should pay A.R.F. with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the closure periods. They submit that such insistence on the part of the State is arbitrary and infringes the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They point out that even during the partial closure periods, the Petitioners, without demur, have fairly paid the A.R.F. Still, the absence of reciprocal fairness by the State Government violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6.4 The Petitioners have pointed out how the State Government has granted exemptions or concessions to specific sectors like tra