Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. In this petition, the charge of licence fee under Rule 46(4) of the Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) is under challenge as being ultra vires the Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

2. The petitioners are licenced book makers and are operating as book makers in the Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and are governed by the Royal Western India Turf Club, Bombay. The petitioners have been given licences to operate the books at the Delhi Race Club on payment of prescribed fee of Rs 9,400/- etc. per day for "On Course" races and Rs 5,400/- etc. per day for "Off Course" races. In exchange for the payment of the said licence fee, the said club permits the petitioners to operate and accept bets from punters. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that as an arrangement of quid pro quo amenities like electricity, water, toilets, canteen, hotline for giving the running commentary and close circuit TV to monitor the live races in Delhi are provided by the said club.

3. The club also issues race cards / books for the day giving details about the horses and holds previews of last weeks "Off Course" races, in the coming week so that the book makers can judge the performance of horses in the past races and are better equipped to offer odds for the bets. The persons who place bets are also benefitted in choosing the best available bets.

4. The said club has been granted a licence for horse racing under Rule 6 of the Delhi Race Course Licencing Rules, 1985 framed under the Mysore Race Course Licencing Act, 1952 as extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Under the Mysore Race Course Licencing Act, 1952, a provision has been made by virtue of Section 11 to enable the Government to make rules, inter alia, to charge "fees" and the quantum of the fee has been left to be provided by the licencing rules.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier when the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 was in force in Delhi, the book makers were not required to be licenced by the respondents, but with the introduction of the said Act (Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1996), the petitioners were required to get a licence to operate as book makers on a licence fee of Rs 2 lakhs per year. This requirement was allegedly prescribed under Rule 46 of the said Rules read with Section 20 of the said Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, book makers at other race courses in Bombay, Calcutta, Bangalore, Mysore, Chennai, Ooty and Hyderabad do not pay any licence fee to their respective Entertainments and Betting Tax Departments. It was, however, pointed out that in U.P., under Rule 47, a nominal fee of Rs 2,000/- per year was being charged from the book makers and it is perhaps because of the nominal nature of the fee that the same has not been challenged. However, since the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioners as licence fee under the said Act and Rules is heavy, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the same, have challenged it by way of this writ petition.

6. It would be appropriate at this juncture to set out the relevant portions of Sections 20 and 45 of the said Act and Rule 46 of the said Rules:

20. Licence for book-maker

No person shall act as book-maker unless he obtains a licence from the Commissioners in the form and manner prescribed.

45. Power to make rules

.(1) The government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

.(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide, for-

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(l) prescription of form and the manner for obtaining bookmakers licence;

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the House of Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi