Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.
Delta Corp Limited and another - Petitioners
Versus
U.T. Administration of Daman and Diu, through the Department of Tourism and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.317 of 2019
Decided On : 29-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Counsel a/w. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Counsel, Cyrus Ardeshir, Senior Counsel, Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Nooruddin Dhilla (Through VC), Rajendra Barot, Ms. Anusha Jacob, Ms. Deepti Prabhu and Himanshu Kalwani i/b. AZB
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Dr. Sanjay Jain, Aayush Kedia, Jugal Haria, Ms. Kashish Chelani, Atharva Date, Harshavardhan Suryawanshi, Deepam Upadhyay
Amendment extending gaming authorisation to Union Territory required unissued Central Government commencement notification; thus inoperative despite rules and representations. Promissory estoppel inapplicable against public policy and non-existent law.
Headnote:(A) Public Gambling Act, 1976 - Amendment Act, 1992 introducing Section 13A authorising electronic amusement/slot machines in five-star hotels - Extended to Union Territory by 1998 notification modifying Section 1(2) to require Central Government notification in Official Gazette for commencement, which was never issued - Section 13A thus never in force - 2008 notification prescribing licensing procedure under Section 13A invalid ab initio; Section 22, General Clauses Act bars rules taking effect before Act's commencement. (Paras 58-66)
(B) General Clauses Act - Section 3(8)(b)(iii) - Central Government includes Union Territory Administrator only within authority scope under Article 239 of Constitution - No authority for Administrator to notify commencement date expressly reserved for Central Government. (Paras 67-74)
(C) Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation - Inapplicable against non-existent statute, invalid representations, or public policy prohibiting gaming machines - Conditional no-objection lapsed after three years; current law prohibits such machines, mandamus cannot compel violation. (Paras 75-83)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners owning five-star hotel sought writ of mandamus for license to install electronic amusement/slot machines, claiming reliance on 2007 no-objection letter, 2008 rules, and invested over Rs.450 crores in construction. Administration refused via 2018 letters, citing non-applicability of amendment and policy against casinos.
Findings of Court:
Amendment never commenced; prior actions ultra vires; no vested rights; gaming remains prohibited under operative law post-2022.
Issues: Whether Section 13A in force in Union Territory; validity of 2008 rules and 2007 no-objection; applicability of promissory estoppel despite non-commencement and public policy; effect of 2014 withdrawal on pending application.
Ratio Decidendi: Strict compliance with prescribed commencement mode mandatory for law's operation; subordinate rules or administrative representations cannot validate uncommenced parent Act; no judicial legal fiction to deem Act in force; estoppel yields to public interest and statutory prohibition.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual chronology of laws, applications, and refusals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 2. petitioners argue section 13a applies, invoke estoppel. (Para 29 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 3. respondents contend 1992 amendment unnotified, no estoppel. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 4. 1992 amendment invalid without central government notification. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 5. administrator lacks power to commence the amendment act. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 6. no mandamus or estoppel against law and public policy. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
JUDGMENT :
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner No.1 owns and operates a five star hotel called ‘The Deltin’ at Varkund, Nani-Daman. The Petitioner No.2 is the Director of the Petitioner No.1. The Respondent No.1 is the Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu (hereinafter referred to as ‘UT of Daman and Diu’) through the Department of Tourism. The Respondent No.2 is the Administrator of the UT of Daman and Diu appointed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent No.3 is the Director (Tourism), UT of Daman and Diu.
3. The main prayer in this Petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue a license to the Petitioner No.1 to install games of electronic amusement/slot machines at ‘The Deltin Hotel’. The other necessary connected prayers are for setting aside the letters dated 31.8.2018 addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the Ministry of Home Affairs [MHA], Government of India and addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner No.1 in effect refusing to grant license. There are other amended prayers for the following declarations:
i. To declare that the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 is in force in UT of Daman and Diu;
ii. The withdrawal notification dated 28.4.2014 is not applicable to the Petitioner No.1’s application dated 13.3.2014;
iii. And in the alternative, the withdrawal notification dated28.4.2024 be declared as ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
4. The brief facts, as set out in the Petition, are as follows:
On 30.7.1976, the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 came into force. It was an Act to provide for punishment for public gambling, for keeping common gaming houses and gaming in common gaming houses in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. It was enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Goa, Daman and Diu and extended to the whole of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. Goa was a Union Territory at that point of time. The Act prohibited certain activities with respect to “gaming” as defined in the Act. The punishment was provided for keeping common gaming house. There were other provisions giving power regarding entry and search to the police etc.. The offences under the Act were made cognizable.
5. There was no provision or concession for keeping slot machines or games or electronic amusement games which could be used for the prohibited activities under the Act.
6. In the year 1987, The Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987 was brought into force from 26.5.1987. From that day, the State of Goa became separate and Daman and Diu continued to be a Union Territory; thus becoming separate from the State of Goa. Section 63 of the said Act provided for applicability of the laws which were in force on that day also to Daman and Diu.
7. On 24.8.1992, the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 (Act No.2 of 1992) (for short, ‘1992 Goa Amendment Act’) was brought into force. Section 13A was introduced in the original Act of 1976. S
