1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. By way of present petition preferred under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :

a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction to the Respondent authorities not to enter and obstruct the business of the Petitioner and its Franchises’ and also direct them not to consider the Business activity of the petitioner and its Franchises’ as a Gambling activities;

b) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may direct the respondent authorities not to enter and obstruct the business of the present petitioner and its Franchises’ and not consider their Business activities as a Gambling Activities.

c) Ad interim relief in terms of Parab of the prayer clause may be granted.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is the Director of H.S. Online Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Co. at Bhavnagar. The petitioner is having business of all kind of products, sales and service through ebidding, eselling throughout the India for selling of Yantras, Pooja, Products, Vastu Products, Religious Artifact, FengShui etc. As per the petitioner, for further growth of business, some promotional and gift schemes were to be implemented in different types of Yantras, which were sold at the price of Rs.11/per Yantra. The customer is given one ID number on receipt of purchase and that ID is to be fed on the online website of petitioner Company and if such ID is selected in online draw then such person is given silver coin of Rs.100/as an incentive. The electronic machines or computers kept in the said shop are not objected for gambling or any other illegal activities. The respondents Authorities visited the place of the petitioner and they are creating obstructions in running their business and they are also threatening present petitioner and also to the customers of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents Authorities not to enter and obstruct the business of the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and its Franchises’ are not doing any activity, which can be said as illegal and not permissible as the Bombay Prevention Gambling Act or Bombay Police Act. He further submitted that the business activities of the petitioner are run by way of online lucky draw scheme and same is permissible under the law. The petitioner is only offering Silver Coin worth Rs.100/to the purchaser, whose ID is selected in the online lucky draw as an incentive on their purchase and if the Silver Con is out of stock then the cash amount of Rs.100/(equal to the price of Silver Con) is given. This incentive scheme is only available to the purchaser of the products of the petitioner and therefore, such activities cannot be considered at all Gambling activity under the law. There are numbers of consumers product available in market which is marketed on Television also and online draw and computer draw are made and same are not considered as Gambling. He further submitted that the petitioner is not doing any activity which is violative of public good and public purpose or which can be said as an offence under the Bombay Prevention Gambling Act and the Bombay Police Act or any other law.

5. He further submitted that one of the Franchise of the petitioner filed one Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2012 before the Civil Court at Gandhidham, wherein interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that here the meaning of gambling is required to be considered and in the meaning of gambling, the element must be of wagering or betting. Here in the activities of the petitioner, the element of wagering or betting is not prima facie established or proved by any manner and the activities of the petitioner is not covered