WP-72-2021.DOC

Niti

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.72 OF 2021

AND

CIVIL REVIEW (APPLICATION) NO.4 OF 2021

SHUKR SUDIN SINAI USGAONKAR

S/O. SUDIN M.S. USGAONKAR,

25 YEARS, STUDENT,

R/O.D-101 VASANT VIHAR,

NEAR ADARSH CIRCLE,

CARANZALEM, GOA – 403002.

...PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF GOA,

THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,

SECRETARIAT BLOCK,

GOA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

COMPLEX,

ALTO-PORVORIM,

GOA-403521.

…RESPONDENTS

Petitioner in person.

Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Prashil Arolkar,

Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM:

M. S. SONAK &

M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

Reserved on :

Pronounced on :

11^th October 2021

14^th October 2021

JUDGMENT :(Per M.S. Jawalkar, J.)

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Page 1 of 19

14^th October 2021

WP-72-2021.DOC

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent

and at the request of the petitioner appearing in person and

learned Advocate General. Learned Additional Government

Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent.

3.

Petitioner, who appeared in person, seeks to challenge in

this Writ Petition the constitutional validity of Section 13D(e)

and 13G read with Section 2(7) and 2(8) of the Goa Public

Gambling Act, 1976 (for the sake of brevity, 'the Act').

4.

It is submitted by the petitioner that Section 13A was

inserted by way of amendment dated 24.08.1992, thereby

empowering the government to permit the conduct of any game

of electronic amusement or slot machine in Five Star Hotels. The

said Act was further amended on 11.09.1996 and a further clause

to Section 13A of the Act was added thereby empowering the

government to permit the conduct of such table games and

gaming on board in vessels offshore as may be notified. Section

2(A) was added by way of amendment and “Gaming

Commissioner” was defined. “Tourist” and “Tourist permit” are

defined under Section 2(7) and Section 2(8), respectively. The

said Act was further amended on 01.02.2020 and Section 13(G)

was inserted in the said Act. This section makes it an offence for

Page 2 of 19

14^th October 2021

WP-72-2021.DOC

any person to enter such a place or area for gaming, designated by

the government by notification, without a valid tourist permit.

5.

The petitioner contends that these provisions, inserted by

way of amendment to the said Act, violate Article 14 of the

Constitution as they discriminate between “tourists” and “non-

tourists” in terms of the permissibility of entry into places where

games, as authorized under Section 13A, are actually conducted

and are consequently void as per Article 13(2) of the Constitution

of India.

6.

The petitioner made it clear that he has not filed any public

interest litigation but is agitating his personal rights. Petitioner

contends that he is desirous of visiting the casinos whose activities

have commenced but is barred from doing so on account of

Section 13(G) of the Act, which restricts the entry of any person

other than a tourist or the holder of tourist permit. In other

words, any person who is a permanent resident or is domiciled in

the State of Goa is barred entry to “casinos” or the places or areas

where gaming activities are actually conducted as authorized

under Section 13A of the Act. Petitioner does not qualify criteria

of 'tourist' since he is a permanent resident of Goa.

Page 3 of 19

14^th October 2021

WP-72-2021.DOC

7.

The petitioner submits that the impugned provisions

contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India by prohibiting

access of persons, who are permanent residents of Goa. The

distinction being made between tourists and non-tourists

miserably fails the test of reasonable classification which must be

fulfilled by any classification to withstand the rigors of Article 14.

He contends that what is good for tourists cannot be bad for the

Goans or non-tourists. He submits that the classification is not

based on any intelligible differentia and the differentia