The application fee for a gambling license is refundable under Clause 5(x) of the notification, as it constitutes a fee that was not processed.

JUDGMENT:

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3.

The Petition is filed with the following prayers:

a) For a writ of certiorari or another other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or for any other appropriate order, writ or direction under Article 227 or the Constitution of India, calling for the records underlying the impugned judgment dated 12/04/2023 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Gambling Appeal No. 01/2023 and for quashing and setting aside the said impugned Judgment dated 12/04/2023 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Gambling Appeal No. 01/2023, after examining the same for its legality and propriety;

b) For an order of stay on the operation, execution and/or implementation of the impugned Judgment dated 12/04/2023 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Gambling Appeal No. 01/2023, during the pendency and the disposal of the present Petition;

c) For ad-interim ex-parte reliefs in terms of the prayer clause (b) above;

d) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case;

4.

Mr. Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the learned Administrative Tribunal committed an error in allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondents and directing refund of the application fees with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

5.

Mr. Arolkar submits that there is no provision under the Act or the notifications issued by the Government from time to time for refund of such application fees. It is submitted that the observations of the learned Administrative Tribunal with regard to the discussion about the fees qua the tax is out of context. He would submit that the Respondents applied for grant of license in respect of the gambling activities in their Establishment and as per the provisions of the Gambling Act and the notifications issued, the Government is entitled to exempt such activities by recovering the fees from the operator. He would submit that the notifications issued by the Government under Section 13A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 [the Gambling Act, for short] provide that the Application for grant of license shall be accompanied by a fee which is non-refundable as there is no provision under the Act, Rules and no notification is issued for refunding of such fees, in case, the Application is withdrawn.

6.

Mr. Arolkar would submit that the Respondents challenged the decision of the Government dated 07.06.2022 before the Administrative Tribunal. He would further submit that in fact, the Petitioners were not properly represented before the Administrative Tribunal, which resulted in passing of the ex-parte order, which is impugned in the present proceedings. It is his contention that the directions given by the Administrative Tribunal are clearly perverse and beyond the powers since there is no provision to refund such application fees.

7.

Per contra, Mr. Coelho Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the scope of the present Petition that too, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and since the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, need not be interfered.

8.

Mr. Pereira would submit that the Petitioners are not challenging the said order for not giving any opportunity by the Tribunal when in fact, the Petitioners were served and several opportunities were given to the Petitioners to appear and contest the matter.

9.

Mr. Pereira would submit that the notifications issued from time to time clearly go to show that such notifications are issued under the delegated legislation and the facts of the matter would clearly go to show that the Application filed by the Respondents was not even processed. He submits that fees as found in the notification of the year