Bombay High Court
Delta Corp Lomited vs U. T. Administration Of Damn And Diu Thru … on 29 April, 2026
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2026:BHC-AS:20375-DB
:1: CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2019
Delta Corp Limited
and another ...Petitioners
Versus
U.T. Administration of Daman
and Diu, through the Department
of Tourism and others ...Respondents
-----
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 Partners for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Dr. Sanjay Jain, Aayush Kedia,
Jugal Haria, Ms. Kashish Chelani, Atharva Date, Harshavardhan
Suryawanshi, Deepam Upadhyay, for the Respondents.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 08th APRIL, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT:
[Per 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
1 of 60
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:2: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
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
2 of 60::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:3: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt13.3.2014;
iii. And in the alternative, the withdrawal notification dated
28.4.2024 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.
3 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:4: CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
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. Section 13A reads thus :
“13A. Authorised Game :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, the Government may authorise any game of electronic
amusement/slot machines in Five Star Hotels subject to such
conditions, including payment of such recurring and non-recurring
fees, as may be prescribed.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any game
authorised under sub-section (1).”
8. The applicability of this particular provision to UT of
Daman and Diu is seriously disputed by both the parties in this
case. According to the Petitioners by virtue of the said provision,
4 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:5: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
the Petitioners were entitled to install electronic amusement/slot
machines and then the prohibition under the Original Act would
not apply. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondents that
the said provision was never brought in force as far as the UT of
Daman and Diu is concerned.
9. According to the Petitioners, the 1992 Goa Amendment
Act was made applicable to UT of Daman and Diu from 1.7.1998
vide a notification. According to the Petitioners, therefore, Section
13A referred to hereinabove was made applicable to UT of Daman
and Diu authorizing the Respondent No.2 to grant licenses for
installation of electronic amusement/slot machines in five star
hotels subject to such conditions as may be specified.
10. It is case of the Petitioners that on 24.7.2007, the
Petitioner No.1 addressed a letter to the Respondent No.2 stating
that the Petitioner No.1 intended to set up a five star hotel in
Daman along with games of electronic amusement/slot machines
within the said five star hotel as Section 13A was extended to the
UT of Daman and Diu. According to the Petitioners, the
construction of a five star hotel was neither commercially viable
nor profitable in the UT of Daman and Diu without setting up of
5 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:6: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
electronic amusement/slot machines along with the five star hotel.
11. In response, the Respondent No.1 addressed a letter
dated 12.10.2007 to the Petitioner No.1. It was stated in the letter
that the Petitioner No.1’s request for granting license for operating
games of electronic amusement/slot machines was examined and it
was found that such activity was permissible under the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act which extended to UT of Daman and Diu. It was
further mentioned that, in that view, the Union Territory had no
objection to grant of license for operating games of electronic
amusement/slot machines at Daman in the five star hotel premises.
It was further mentioned that the Petitioner No.1 would be granted
license only after the construction of a five star hotel duly
sanctioned by the competent local authority and approved by the
Ministry of Tourism subject to the Petitioner No.1 fulfilling the
relevant conditions under the 1992 Goa Amendment Act. It was
specifically mentioned that the Petitioner No.1 was required to
complete all the formalities as mentioned in the letter and in the
Act within three years from the date of issuance of such a letter.
12. Certain arguments were advanced from both sides with
reference to this letter. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners
6 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:7: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
highlighted that the letter mentions that the Union Territory
Administration had no objection for grant of such license; whereas
the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents highlighted that
the Petitioner No.1 was required to complete the formalities within
three years from the date of the letter i.e. from 12.10.2007.
13. On 5.2.2008, the Union Territory Administration of
Daman and Diu, through the Department of Tourism published a
notification. It refers to the procedure and forms for application for
obtaining license for operating games of electronic amusement/slot
machines in a five star hotel. The preamble of the notification
mentions that the Administration of UT of Daman and Diu was
pleased to authorize games of electronic amusement/slot machines
subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification,
in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13A of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 as in force in the UT of
Daman and Diu.
14. Strong arguments were advanced from both sides in
respect of the notification of 2008. The main contention of the
Petitioners is that the publication of this notification of 2008 itself
mentions that the aforementioned Section 13A was in force in the
7 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:8: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
UT of Daman and Diu. This was mentioned in the preamble of the
2008 notification.
15. On the other hand, the contention of the Respondents
is that though this notification was published, it had no legal basis
because Section 13A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling
Act , 1976 was not in force as the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was
not notified or published as far as the UT of Daman and Diu are
concerned.
16. At this stage it is necessary to mention that the said
notification of 2008 dated 5.2.2008 was specifically withdrawn
vide the notification dated 28.4.2014 issued by the UT
Administration of Daman and Diu through the Department of
Tourism. It was published on 2.5.2014.
One of the prayers in the Petition is for declaration that
this notification dated 28.4.2014 be declared as ultra vires,
unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, and not applicable to the
Petitioners’ application for seeking licenses for those machines.
17. To continue with the chronology of events, the next
important date is 14.3.2014. The Petitioner No.1 Company
addressed a letter dated 14.3.2014 to the Respondent No.3 for
8 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
:9: CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
applying for grant of license for installation of games of electronic
amusement/slot machines from the Respondent No.3 in ‘Form A’
pursuant to the in-principle NOC granted through the
aforementioned letter dated 12.10.2007 issued by the Respondent
No.3. The Petitioner No.1 made an application for license for
installing 140 games of electronic amusement/slot machines. It was
mentioned in the said application/letter that they were paying
license fees as required under the notification of 2008.
18. It is the case of the Petitioners that before making the
said application dated 14.3.2014 for license for installing 140
machines, the Petitioner No.1 had constructed ‘The Deltin Hotel’ in
or around June, 2010. They had raised money through loans,
corporate deposits etc.. The total investment was more than
Rs.450/- Crores. The Petition refers to various permissions obtained
by the Petitioner by that period.
19. In March, 2014 the Petitioner No.1 commenced the
operations of ‘The Deltin Hotel’ but no action was forthcoming
from the Respondent No.3 on the application made by the
Petitioners for grant of license for installation of these games. The
Petition then refers to various correspondence, letters, reminders
9 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 10 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
sent by the Petitioners upto 2018.
20. The Petitioners entered into the correspondence also
with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
21. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide
their letter dated 15.10.2018 informed the Petitioners that the
subject of grant of license for installation of those machines in the
Deltin Hotel came under the jurisdiction of the UT Administration
of Daman and Diu and for that purpose the UT Administration may
be approached.
22. On the other hand, vide letter dated 31.8.2018 issued
by the UT Administration of Daman and Diu through the
Department of Tourism, the Petitioner No.1 was informed that the
competent authority of the UT Administration of Daman and Diu
had decided to reject all applications for grant of licence for
installation and operation of Casinos at Daman and that any
further applications for operation of Casinos in the UT of Daman
and Diu would be accepted only after taking due approvals from
the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, finally the Petitioners’
application for grant of license for installation of those machines
was refused.
10 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 11 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
23. In this background, the Petitioners have approached
this Court for the aforementioned reliefs.
24. In response to the Petition, the Respondents filed their
affidavit-in-reply and certain other documents were annexed to the
affidavit-in-reply. These letters and their brief description are as
follows :
i) The letter dated 24.7.2007 sent by the Petitioner No.1
to the Respondent No.2 for getting permission and license for
casino within the five star luxury hotel at Daman;
ii) The Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated
14.8.2007 to the MHA referring to the application for license to
install those machines. The letter was signed by the Assistant
Director of Tourism. This letter mentions that it was issued with
the approval of the Administrator. Vide that letter, information and
advise was sought from the MHA as the electronic amusement /
slot machines were to be opened up for the first time in that
territory and grant of license was a policy decision.
iii) The MHA, vide letter dated 16.8.2007, addressed a
letter to the Administrator with a copy to the Assistant Director of
Tourism. It was mentioned that, as per Section 13A of the Goa,
11 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 12 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, as extended to the UT
of Daman and Diu, the requisite power to grant permission/license
was vested in the Administrator and, therefore, the matter was to
be decided by the UT Administration keeping in view the local
conditions as per the provisions of the said Act.
iv) The Respondent No.3, vide letter dated 12.10.2007,
informed the Petitioner about their no objection. The said letter is
already referred to hereinabove.
v) The letter dated 13.6.2013 was sent by the then
Administrator addressed to MHA. The said letter mentions that the
1992 Goa Amendment Act was extended to UT of Daman and Diu
vide notification dated 1.7.1998 but Section 1(2) of the said Act
mentions that it was to come into force on such date as the Central
Government by notification in the Official Gazette was to appoint.
It was further mentioned that the Central Government had not
notified such date. It was further mentioned that the UT
Administration was not in favour of coming into force of the 1992
Goa Amendment Act as extended to UT of Daman and Diu as
insertion of Section 13A in the Original Act would permit licensing
of games of electronic amusement/slot machines (i.e. Casinos) in
12 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 13 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
the five star hotel in the verdant UT of Daman and Diu and that the
Administration was of the opinion that the UT was a place blessed
with nature and its culture would be irreparably damaged even if a
single casino came into operation. It was further mentioned that
the then UT Administration had issued a no objection certificate on
the erroneous interpretation of the extant law and it was prayed
that the 1992 Goa Amendment as extended to the UT of Daman
and Diu be repealed.
vi) The letter dated 6.8.2013 issued by the MHA,
Government of India addressed to the Administrator of UT of
Daman and Diu is an important letter. It was accepted that no date
was notified by the Central Government to bring in force the
amendment extending to UT of Daman and Diu as per the 1992
Goa Amendment Act and, therefore, all actions taken by the UT
Administration on the presumption that Section 13A was in force
was ultra virus ab initio.
25. After that the notification dated 5.2.2008 was
withdrawn vide the notification dated 28.4.2014, as mentioned
earlier.
26. There are other letters as well. They will be referred to
13 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 14 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
if found necessary in the following discussion.
27. It is the case of the Respondents UT of Daman and Diu
that the Petitioners’ request for grant of license for installation of
those machines was based on the NOC issued on 12.10.2007. The
said NOC itself mentions that the stipulated period for completing
all the requirements was three years from the date of issuance of
NOC. But after the said period of three years was over, the request
for granting license cannot be granted. The amendment made by
Goa in the year 1992 was extended to UT of Daman and Diu with
certain modifications but the date for bringing these modifications
in force was not notified and, therefore the UT Administration was
not authorized to allow the operations of casino/electronic
amusement/slot machines in the Union Territory. According to the
Respondents, the prayers in this Petition cannot be granted. The
decision taken by the UT Administration not to grant license is a
policy decision taken after consultation with all the stakeholders,
Members of the Parliament and the local representatives.
28. The Petitioners filed their rejoinder, inter alia,
reiterating their main grounds. According to the Petitioners, relying
on the NOC given by the Respondent No.1, the Petitioners
14 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 15 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
commenced the construction of ‘The Deltin Hotel’ at significant
costs of approximately Rs.450 Crores and completed the
construction in June, 2010. Vide letter dated 31.8.2018 addressed
by the Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner No.1 it was stated that the
competent authority of the Respondent No.1 had decided to reject
all applications made for grant of license under Section 13A of the
Principal Act. Therefore, by exercising its power and rejecting all
applications that were made for grant of license, the Respondent
No.1 had in fact exercised its power under Section 13A of the
Principal Act, which means that the Respondents and the MHA had
all along accepted that the 1992 Goa Amendment Act had been
brought into force in the UT of Daman and Diu.
29. The Petitioners have further mentioned in the rejoinder
that the conduct of the Respondents led the Petitioners to expend
more than Rs.450/- Crores towards construction of a five star hotel
and the Respondents cannot be permitted to arbitrarily resile from
their earlier representations causing grave loss and serious
prejudice to the Petitioners. The well established principles of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation apply to the
Respondents. The NOC given by the Respondents mention that the
15 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 16 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Petitioners would be granted license only after construction of the
five star hotel duly sanctioned by the local authority and approved
by the Ministry of Tourism and subject to the Petitioners fulfilling
all the relevant conditions mentioned in the 1992 Goa Amendment
Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the Petitioners
contended that the hotel was completed in the year 2009 which
was well within the three years period specified in the no objection
letter; and the occupancy certificate was issued to the Petitioner
No.1 on 29.6.2009. Thus, the Petitioner No.1 had acted diligently.
Submissions of Shri Janak Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioners :
i. Shri Dwarkadas submitted that, by the 1998 notification, the
1992 Goa Amendment Act was extended to the UT of Daman
and Diu. Thereafter in July 2007, the Petitioner No.1
submitted a proposal for setting up electronic
amusement/slot machines in their five star hotel. On
14.8.2007, the Respondents addressed a letter stating that
the Administrator intended to consider the request subject to
grant of final license under Section 13A of the Act. Vide
letter dated 16.8.2007, the MHA addressed a letter to the
Respondents mentioning that the requisite power to grant
16 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 17 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
permission/license was vested in the Administrator.
Therefore, the MHA and the Respondents have clearly
accepted that the 1992 Goa Amendment Act had been
brought into force in the UT of Daman and Diu. The
notification dated 5.2.2008 specifying Rules for making
application for license for such machines mentions that the
Administrator of UT Daman and Diu was pleased to authorize
games of electronic amusement/slot machines in exercise of
the powers conferred by Section 13A of the Principal Act as
in force in the UT of Daman and Diu. Thus, the notification
itself mentions that the said Act of 1976 with inclusion of
Section 13A was in force in the UT of Daman and Diu.
Therefore, according to Shri Dwarkadas the Respondents
cannot contend that the Principal Act was not in force or that
Section 13A after the amendment was not applicable to the
UT of Daman and Diu.
ii. The Petitioners spent huge sum of more than Rs.450/- Crores
in constructing a five star hotel relying on the 1998
notification, the no objection letter and the 2008 notification.
All the necessary approvals and licenses have been obtained
17 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 18 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
by the Petitioner No.1. Despite continuous follow up for
several years between September 2014 to June, 2018 by
several letters addressed by the Petitioner No.1, the said
licenses were not granted to the Petitioners. The Respondent
No.1 had rejected all applications under Section 13A of the
Principal Act including the Petitioners’ application without
stating any reasons and, therefore, on this ground alone the
impugned letter 1 and the impugned letter 2 deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
iii. The impugned letters did not proceed on the fact that Section
13A of the Principal Act was not in force but they proceeded
on the ground that the Respondent No.3 has in fact exercised
jurisdiction under Section 13A of the Principal Act to reject
all the applications. That means, the stand of the
Respondents could not be that said the Section was not in
force but the Respondents had exercised their powers under
Section 13A to reject those applications.
iv. Section 3(8)(b)(iii) of the General Clauses Act lays down that
the ‘Central Government’ in relation to the administration of
Union Territory would mean the Administrator thereof acting
18 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 19 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
within the scope of the authority given to him under Article
239 of the Constitution. The 2008 notification was published
in the official gazette of UT of Daman and Diu on 8.2.2008. It
was issued by the Respondent No.1 by order and in the name
of the Administrator of Daman and Diu. The 1992 Goa
Amendment Act applicable to UT of Daman and Diu provided
in Section 1(2) that it shall come into force on such date as
the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, bring it into force. The conjoint reading of these two
provisions meant that the 2008 notification was validly
published by an order of the Administrator of Daman and Diu
in exercise of Section 1(2) of the 1992 Goa Amendment Act
and hence it meant that Section 13A of the Principal Act was
in force in the UT of Daman and Diu. In support of this
contention, Shri Dwarkadas relied on the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following judgments :
[1] Uttam Bala Ravankar Vs. Assistant Collector of
Customs and Central Excise, Goa and Another 1. In
this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had applied
Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act to uphold
1 1970(2) SCC 396
19 of 60::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 20 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odta notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of
Goa and Daman and Diu (Administrator) of that
UT, where the power to issue notification was
exercisable by the Central Government.
[2] The same ratio was followed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment in the
case of M/s. Punjab Tin Supply Co., Chandigarh and
others Vs. Central Government and others2.
[3] In the case of Sushil Flour Dal & Oil Mills Vs. Chief
Commissioner and others3, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court approved the view that under Part VIII of
the Constitution, the power to Administer the
Union Territories vested in the President and the
President could exercise that power directly or
through an Administrator appointed by him. The
Administrator so appointed was the medium
through which the President exercised the function
of administering the Union Territories. There was
a reference made to Section 3(8) of the General
Clauses Act.
2 (1984) 1 SCC 206
3 (2000) 10 SCC 593
20 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 21 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
v. Shri Dwarkadas further submitted that under Section 17 of
the Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman and Diu (Merger Of
Union Territories) Act, 2019, it was provided that all laws
which immediately before the appointed day extended to, or
were in force in existing Union Territories shall, on and from
the appointed day, continued to be in force in those areas in
respect of which they were in force immediately before that
day.
Therefore, according to Shri Dwarkadas, the
Principal Act, including Section 13A, was extended to and
was in force in the UT of Daman and Diu on the appointed
day, in the Merger Act, in the UT of Daman and Diu.
vi. Shri Dwarkadas also referred to Section 19 of the Merger Act.
According to Shri Dwarkadas by virtue of the said Section,
the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Public
Gambling Act, 1976 as amended by Schedule has been
adopted and given effect to in the merged Union Territories
of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. There was
no specific amendment/modification, substitution or
21 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 22 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
omission of words made to Section 13A in the Schedule to
the Adaptation Order.
vii. The withdrawal notification dated 28.4.2014 withdrawing
the 2008 notification is not mentioned in the impugned
letters. Thus, the Petitioners’ applications were not rejected
on the ground that the 2008 notification was withdrawn.
viii. In any case, the application dated 14.3.2014 made by the
Petitioners was submitted before the withdrawal notification
was issued on 28.4.2014 and, therefore, the impugned
withdrawal notification could not apply to the Petitioners’
application. Therefore, Shri Dwarkadas relied on Section 6
of the General Clauses Act which provides for effect of repeal.
According to Section 6(c) the repeal was not affecting any
right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or
incurred under any enactment so repealed. He referred to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. Amrit Lal & Co. 4, to
support this contention.
ix. Shri Dwarkadas then referred to the principle of promissory
estoppel and legitimate expectation. The Respondent No.1
4 2001(8) SCC 397
22 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 23 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
had made a categoric representation, assurance and promise
that the Petitioner No.1 will be granted license under Section
13A of the Principal Act. Based on this promise, the
Petitioner No.1 had incurred expenses and had satisfied all
the conditions and requirements. The construction of a five
star hotel was not commercially viable without setting up of
electronic amusement/slot machines. The Respondents were
bound by their promise. The Respondents cannot be
permitted to resile from their earlier representations thereby
causing grave loss and severe prejudice to the Petitioners. To
base his submission on the principle of promissory estoppel
and legitimate expectation Shri Dwarkadas relied on the
following two main judgments :
II] State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.6.
x. Shri Dwarkadas contended that in Section 4A in the Principal
Act applicable to Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and
Diu i.e. The Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman And Diu
Public Gambling Act, 1976 which provides for prohibition of
5 (2016) 6 SCC 766
6 2020 SCC Online SC 986
23 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 24 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
any place used for the purpose of gambling has no
application to the Petitioners’ entitlement to a license under
Section 13A of the Principal Act.
Submissions of Shri Anturkar learned Senior Counsel for the
Respondents :
30. Shri Anturkar invited our attention to the timeline of
the Acts which were brought in force for Goa, Daman and Diu in
respect of the present subject matter. The Original Act i.e. The
Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act was brought into force in
the year 1976. This Act did not permit use of slot machines /
electronic machines at all. Therefore, from 1976 to 1987 those
machines were not allowed in Daman and Diu.
31. The second time slot was between 1987 to 1992. In the
year 1987, The Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987 was
brought into force from 26.5.1987. From that date, the State of
Goa became separate and Daman and Diu continued to be a Union
Territory separate from the State of Goa. Section 63 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987 laid down that the laws
in force in the existing Union Territories on the appointed day shall
continue to remain in force. Thus, even after reorganization by
24 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 25 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
making the Goa a separate State, the 1976 Principal Act was in
force in the UT of Daman and Diu and hence those machines were
still not allowed.
32. On 24.8.1992, the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment)
Act, 1992 was brought into force. This Act was passed only by the
Goa Legislature and,therefore, it was not applicable to the UT of
Daman and Diu. By this Act, Section 13A was introduced in the
State of Goa. Section 1 of the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment)
Act, 1992 is as follows :
“1. Short title and commencement. — (1) This Act may be
called the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992.
(2) It shall come into force at once.”
Thus, the said Amendment Act came into force at once from
24.8.1992, but only for State of Goa.
33. The fourth time slot was from 1.7.1998 when in
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Goa, Daman
and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, the Central Government
extended to the Union Territory of Daman and Diu, the enactment
specified in Column No.1 of the Schedule subject to the
modifications specified in the corresponding entries in Column
No.2 of the said Schedule.
25 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 26 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
34. The significant modification to the Goa Public
Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 was that Section 1(2) was
modified and it reads thus :
“(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint”
One of the main contentions of Shri Anturkar is that
this modification meant that the Goa Public Gambling
(Amendment) Act, 1992 could not be made applicable to the Union
Territory of Daman and Diu unless and until it was brought into
force by the Central Government through a notification in the
Official Gazette. This Act was never notified and hence the 1992
Amendment Act was never brought in force for UT of Daman and
Diu.
35. This is a major issue of dispute between the Petitioners
and the Respondents. Shri Anturkar submitted that if the Act itself
is not brought into force it would mean that Section 13A which was
introduced by the said Amendment Act was not brought into force
and hence, those machines were still prohibited. In addition, the
Schedule to the notification dated 1.7.1998 provided that for
Daman and Diu, the exact words “the Government of Goa” were
26 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 27 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
substituted by the words “the administrator of the Union territory
of Daman and Diu appointed by the President Under article 239 of
the Constitution.”
36. In the year 2019, the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and
Daman and Diu (Merger of Union Territories) Act, 2019 was
passed.
37. Shri Anturkar further submitted that in the year 2022,
the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Public Gambling
Act, 1976 was made applicable w.e.f. 20.4.2022 during pendency of
the present Petition. Very significantly Section 13A is not included
in the said Act and hence even as of today, those machines are not
permitted to be operated and, therefore, if the relief is granted to
the Petitioners as of today, it would be in violation of the provisions
of the existing law. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against
the provisions of law.
38. Shri Anturkar further submitted that since the 1992
Amendment Act was not in force in Daman and Diu. Consequently
though the requirements and procedure for making application for
obtaining license to run those machines, was published in the year
2008, it was without legal validity. These Rules are sought to be
27 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 28 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
made applicable to the Petitioners on the basis of the submission
that the publication of these Rules by themselves would mean that
the 1992 Amendment Act introducing Section 13A was in force.
Shri Anturkar submitted that this would amount to a legal fiction
which would be clearly beyond the scope of the judiciary. In
support of this contention, Shri Anturkar relied on the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and
others Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and
others7. It was held that it was the exclusive prerogative of the
Legislature to create a legal fiction meaning thereby to enact a
deeming provision for the purpose of assuming the existence of a
fact which does not really exist. Creating a fiction by judicial
interpretation may amount to legislation, a field exclusively within
the domain of the legislature. Shri Anturkar relied on the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viraj
Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another 8. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that to make a law to exist it must be
made known in the manner ordained by the Legislature. The
requirement of publication in the Gazette serves a dual
7 (2010) 13 SCC 336
8 2026 SCC OnLine SC 101
28 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 29 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures accessibility and notice to
those governed by the law, and (b) it ensures accountability and
solemnity in the exercise of delegated legislative power. It was
further held that before a law can become operative, it must be
promulgated or published. The law is born only upon publication
in the Official Gazette and it is from that date alone that rights may
be curtailed or obligations imposed.
39. Shri Anturkar relied on other judgments taking a
similar view to his submissions regarding the necessity of
publication of law as summarized in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd.‘s case.
40. In response to the submissions made by the Petitioners
in respect of promissory estoppel, Shri Anturkar relied on the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero
Motocorp Limited Vs. Union of India and others 9. In the said judgment
the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered various other judgments
and observed that there can be no estoppel against the Legislature
in the exercise of its legislative functions. Only exception being
that the orders can be passed to prevent fraud or manifest injustice.
It was further observed that where the change of policy is in the
9 (2023) 1 SCC 386
29 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 30 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
larger public interest, the State cannot be prevented from
withdrawing an incentive which it had granted through earlier
notification.
41. Shri Anturkar submitted that the person who made the
representation to the Petitioners had no authority to make such a
representation. The Petitioners ought to have shown that, but for
the representation, they would not have changed their position.
The Petitioners have not shown that they had created a special
building for the purpose of those machines or that they had
incurred huge expenditure in purchasing those machines. The
Petitioners have not shown that the area is so dedicated that it is
impossible to use it for any other purpose. No such material is
produced on record and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
Petitioners had acted on such representation. He further submitted
that as of today the use of those machines is not permitted and in
fact it is an offence. And, therefore, there cannot be any estoppel
against law.
42. Mr. Anturkar further submitted that Section 3(8)(b)(iii)
of the General Clauses Act mentions that the Central Government
shall include in relation to the administration of a Union territory,
30 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 31 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
the administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority
given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution. He submitted
that this is an inclusive definition and, therefore, the Administrator
is not given all the powers of the Central Government but his
powers are restricted to the scope of authority given to him under
Article 239 of the Constitution. He submitted that in the present
case there is nothing to show that he was given specific powers
under Article 239 of the Constitution to bring the 1992
Amendment Act in force as far as the UT of Daman and Diu is
concerned.
43. Shri Anturkar relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of K. Lakshminarayanan Vs. Union of
India10. Shri Anturkar relied on a few enactments wherein a special
reference as made to the Administrator in contrast to the reference
to the Central Government. He referred to the following
enactments :
i] The Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman And Diu Tenancy
Regulation, 2023.
ii] The Factories (Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman And Diu)
Amendment Regulation, 2025.
10 (2020) 14 SCC 664
31 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 32 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
iv] The Goa, Daman and Diu (Authority for Use of Eyes for
Therapeutic Purposes) Act, 1981.
In all these enactments, it was specifically laid down
that those Acts would come into force on such days as the
Administrator in the Official Gazette appoint; whereas in the
present case the Central Government had retained the power to
publish the date on which the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was to be
brought in force in UT of Daman and Diu.
44. Shri Anturkar, therefore, submitted that whenever the
Legislature wanted a differentiation between the ‘Central
Government’ and the ‘Administrator’ they have specifically used two
different words i.e. ‘Central Government’ and ‘Administrator’. In
the 1992 Amendment Act the Act was to be brought into force by
the Central Government. Significantly the word ‘Administrator’ was
not used in that context.
45. Shri Anturkar referred to the submissions on behalf of
the Petitioners in respect of the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
He referred to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in
32 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 33 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
the case of Lalit Sehgal Vs. State of Goa11. In Paragraph-30, the
Division Bench observed that if there was a change in policy or in
public interest, the position shall be altered by a rule or legislation.
No question of legitimate expectation would arise.
46. Shri Anturkar relied on Section 22 of the General
Clauses Act, which provides that the Rules under a particular Act
shall not take effect till commencement of that Act. He submitted
that since the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was never brought in
force, the Rules, even if published, cannot take effect till the
commencement of the Act for the territory of Daman and Diu. Shri
Anturkar further submitted that, in any case, the promise if at all
made in the year 2007, required compliance with certain
requirements within a period of three years but the Petitioners have
not complied with those requirements and, therefore, there was no
responsibility on the then Administrator to fulfill the alleged
promise after 2010.
47. Based on all these above submissions, Shri Anturkar
submitted that no relief can be granted to the Petitioners in the
present Petition.
11 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 447
33 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 34 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
Rejoinder on behalf of the Petitioners :
48. In rejoinder, Shri Dwarkadas, the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners reiterated his stand as submitted by him
during his arguments. In response to the contention that the 1992
Goa Amendment Act was not notified and hence merely publishing
the Rules in 2008 would not mean that the Act was in force; Shri
Dwarkadas submitted that the correspondence between the
Administrator and the Central Government referred to hereinabove
shows that the Central Government had confirmed that the
Administrator had the requisite power to grant permission for such
machines as it was vested in the Administrator and the matter was
left to be decided by the UT administration. After the
correspondence, a Committee was constituted to frame the Rules
under Section 13A and thereafter the Rules were published in the
Official Gazette on 5.2.2008. In such a case it could not be
contended that the Administrator would disown the actions of the
previous Administrator. In any case, the Administrator had acted
within the scope under Article 239 of the Constitution.
49. Shri Dwarkadas then referred to the judgments cited by
Shri Anturkar and submitted that each of these judgments was
34 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:34 :::
: 35 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
distinguishable on the facts of this case. He further submitted that
the Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman and Diu (Merger Of
Union Territories) Act, 2019 made no material change in any law
being in force as on date.
50. In response to the stand taken by Shri Anturkar and the
judgments cited by him in respect of the principle of legitimate
expectation and promissory estoppel, he referred to the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Monnet
Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India and others 12. It was
observed that for invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel,
it is necessary for the promisee to show that by acting on the
promise made to him, he altered his position. However, it is not
necessary for him to prove any damage, detriment or prejudice
caused to him as a result of alteration of such promise.
He submitted that in the present case, the Petitioners
have definitely altered their position based on the promise made as
they have completed construction of a five star hotel. The project
was viable only if use of those machines was permitted. Thus, the
Petitioners have altered their position based on the promise made
to them and it was not necessary for the Petitioners to prove the
12 (2012) 11 SCC 1
35 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 36 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
actual damage, detriment or prejudice.
51. Shri Dwarkadas referred to the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. JSW Steel Limited Vs.
Electricity Inspector and others 13. It was held that in the concerned
notification, promise was given by the State to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner had aligned its position on the promise of the State.
There was huge investment made by the Petitioner relying on the
promise of the State and, therefore, any other interpretation by the
Finance Department of the State not to give benefit to the
Petitioner was held to be arbitrary and not equitable and in that
case benefit was given to the Petitioner who had acted on that
promise.
52. The Petitioners referred to various other judgments but
the main judgments dealing with the issues are referred to
hereinabove. Shri Dwarkadas further submitted that the real
intention behind Section 22 of the General Clauses Act was to
enable the State to make rules, bye-laws and orders before the
commencement of the statute in anticipation of its coming into
force. Section 22 of the General Clauses Act has no application to
the present facts.
13 Decided on 02.04.2026 in Writ Petition No.12477/2015 [Division Bench, Bombay High Court]
36 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 37 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Reasons and conclusions :
53. We have considered the submissions made by both the
learned Senior Counsel. The first relevant Act is the Principal Act
viz., the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976. It
provides the definition of common gaming-house, gaming and
instrument of gaming. The Act provides for punishment for keeping
common gaming-house and for gaming in common gaming-houses.
The Act further provides for power to the police officers to enter
and search the premises and the power to arrest without warrant.
The saving clause was Section 13 which provides that nothing in
the Act shall hold to apply to any game of mere skill wherever
played. It is not the Petitioners’ case that the machines which the
Petitioners want to install in their five-star hotel are used to play
game of mere skill. The operation of those machines are prohibited
under the Principal Act.
54. The operation of the Principal Act continued for a few
more years. In 1987, the State of Goa became separate from Union
Territory of Daman and Diu but the laws which were in force on
26.5.1987 for Goa, Daman and Diu were made applicable to the
State of Goa as well as to the Union Territory of Daman and Diu.
37 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 38 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
55. In the year 1992, the 1992 Goa Amendment Act,
namely, the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 was
brought into force on 24.8.1992. The Act is short, which reads
thus:
“An Act further to amend the Goa, Daman and Diu Public
Gambling Act, 1976.
Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of
Goa in the Forty-Third Year or the Republic of India as
follows:–
1. Short title and commencement. — (1) This Act may be
called the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. Amendment of Section 2. — In clause (3) of section 2 of the
Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 (Act 14 of
1976) (hereinafter referred to as the “principal Act”), for the
words and figure “the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu”,
the words “the Government of Goa” shall be substituted.
3. Insertion of new section 13A. — After section 13 of the
principal Act, the following shall be inserted, namely: —
“13A. Authorised Game.– (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, the Government may
authorise any game of electronic amusement/Slot
machines in Five Star Hotels subject to such
conditions, including payment of such recurring and
non-recurring fees, as may be prescribed.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any
game authorised under sub-section (1).”.
4. Repeal and saving. — (1) The Goa Public Gambling
38 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 39 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (Ordinance No. 3 of 1992) is
hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action
taken under the principal Act, as amended by the said
Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under
the principal Act, as amended by this Act.”
56. A copy of this 1992 Goa Amendment Act is a part of the
compilation tendered by the Petitioners. The significance of this
entire Act is as follows :
1. It was enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Goa;
2. It was to come into force at once i.e. on 24.8.1992;
3. By introduction of Section 13A, the Government could
authorize any game of electronic amusement / slot machines
for Five Star hotels on certain conditions. The provisions of the
Principal Act were not to apply to any game authorized under
sub-section (1).
That would mean that the Government was authorized
to permit use of such electronic amusement/slot machines and
prohibition or restrictions imposed by the Principal Act of 1976
were not to operate. In other words, use of those machines would
not invite any prosecution.
57. The main contentions revolve around this particular
Section 13A. As is clear from above, the amendment which came
39 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 40 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
into force in the year 1992 was applicable only to the State of Goa.
The 1992 Goa Amendment Act was passed only by Goa Legislative
Assembly and the amendment itself made a distinction between
the State of Goa and the UT of Daman and Diu. Clause (3) of
Section 2 of the Principal Act was amended to use the words
“Government of Goa” instead of “Government of Goa, Daman and
Diu”.
58. There is no dispute that at least till 1998 there was no
permission to operate such electronic machines or games
authorized in the five star hotels for the UT of Daman and Diu. The
dispute between the contentions of both the contesting parties
refers to the position from the year 1998 with reference to the
notification dated 1.7.1998 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The said notification mentions thus.
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the
Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 (1 of
1962) the Central Government hereby extends to the UT of
Daman and Diu, the enactments specified in column-1 of
the Schedule hereto annexed subject to the modifications
specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the
said Schedule.”
40 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 41 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
The notification gives the schedule and the reference to
the 1992 Amendment Act. The 1992 Amendment Act, which we
have referred hereinabove, was modified as per the entries in
column (2) of the said Schedule. Significant modification was in
sub-section (2) of Section 1; which after modification was to read
as follows :
“It shall come into force on such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint.”
The other modifications replaced the words “the
Government of Goa” by the words “the Administrator of Union
Territory of Daman and Diu appointed by the President under
Article 239 of the Constitution”.
The significance lies in the fact that while the 1992
Goa Amendment Act was brought into force at once on 24.8.1992
for the State of Goa, the 1992 Amendment Act was made extended
to the UT of Daman and Diu vide the notification dated 1.7.1998
but with a significant variation that the Amendment Act was to
come into force on such date as the Central Government may by
notification in the official gazette appoint.
41 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 42 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
59. This particular modification is the soul of the argument
advanced by Shri Anturkar. There is nothing to show that the
Central Government appointed such date to bring the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act into force for the UT of Daman and Diu. The
position emerges that the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was never
brought into force by the Central Government for UT of Daman and
Diu.
60. The contention of Shri Dwarkadas was with reference
to the publication in 2008 of procedure and forms for making
application for getting licenses for those machines. According to
him, the very fact that the said procedure in the form of Rules was
published; it would mean that the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was
in fact brought into force.
61. In this context, the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. are quite
important. Paragraphs-16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are as
follows :
“16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and have taken note of the relevant statutory
provisions. Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it
must be made known in the manner ordained by the
42 of 60::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 43 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odtlegislature. Delegated legislation, unlike plenary legislation
enacted by the Parliament, is framed in the executive
chambers without open legislative debate. The requirement
of publication in the Gazette, therefore, serves a dual
constitutional purpose i.e. (a) it ensures accessibility and
notice to those governed by the law, and (b) it ensures
accountability and solemnity in the exercise of delegated
legislative power. The requirement of publication in the
Gazette, is therefore not an empty formality. It is an act by
which an executive decision is transformed into law. It is
precisely for this reason that courts have consistently
insisted that strict compliance with the publication
requirements is a condition precedent for the enforceability
of delegated legislation.
17. The legal position in this regard stands crystallized by a long
line of decisions of this Court. The true test of the effective
commencement of a statutory order or subordinate
legislation is whether it has been published in a manner
reasonably calculated to bring it to the notice of all persons
who may be affected by it, namely, through a mode which is
ordinarily and generally accepted for that purpose. The
aforesaid principle was referred to with approval by this
Court and it was held that natural justice requires that before
a law can become operative, it must be promulgated or
published. It must be broadcast in some recognisable way so
that all men may know what it is, or, at the very least, there
must be some special Rule or Regulation or customary
channel by or through which such knowledge can be
acquired with exercise of due and reasonable diligence.
18. Another two-Judge Bench of this Court undertook a
43 of 60::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 44 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odtcomprehensive survey of law relating to publication of
subordinate legislation. The court recognised the modern
reality that delegated legislation pervades almost every
sphere of governance, often framed unobtrusively and
without the visibility that attends Parliamentary enactments.
It was, therefore, held that publication of promulgation is
indispensable to enforceability of subordinate legislation. It
was further held that when the parent statute prescribes a
particular mode of publication, that mode must be strictly
followed. The aforesaid position was reiterated, in
subsequent decisions.”
These observations mean that the statute viz. the 1992
Goa Amendment Act applicable to the UT of Daman and Diu
provided that the said Amendment Act with modification would
come into force on the date appointed by the Central Government.
This mode of publication was required to be strictly followed. In
the present case the fact is that no such date was appointed by the
Central Government and there is no publication of such date in the
Official Gazette. Therefore, we hold that the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act was never brought into force as far as the UT of
Daman and Diu is concerned. Consequently, Section 13A was never
made applicable for UT of Daman and Diu. With the result, use of
electronic amusement/slot machines remained prohibited in UT of
44 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 45 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Daman and Diu.
62. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners tried to
distinguish the ratio in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd.‘s case by contending
that in the facts of Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd., the period between the
notification being uploaded on the website and the notification to
be published in the Official Gazette, the parties did not take any
action pursuant to the notification but in the present case, the
Administrator had taken several steps after the 1998 notification
including publication of the 2008 Rules in the Official Gazette
which stated that the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was in force in UT
of Daman and Diu.
63. We are unable to agree with these submissions. The
ratio of Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd.‘s case is clear enough. It lays down
that if a particular mode or publication is prescribed that mode
must be strictly followed. In the present case, the mode of bringing
the 1992 Goa Amendment Act into force was with the Central
Government. The Central Government had to appoint the date for
bringing it into force. This was not done and hence the Act was
never in force for UT of Daman and Diu.
64. Shri Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for the
45 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 46 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Petitioners heavily relied on the publication of the procedure which
amounted to publication of Rules in the year 2008. The said
notification was published on 5.2.2008. It starts with the following
preamble :
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13A of the
Goa, Daman & Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 (Act 14 of
1976), as in force in the Union Territory of Daman & Diu,
the Administrator of Daman & Diu is pleased to authorise
games of electronic amusement/slot machines subject to the
following terms and conditions:”
Shri Dwarkadas relied heavily on this preamble, which
mention that such games were authorized by virtue of the powers
conferred by Section 13A as in force in the Union Territory of
Daman and Diu.(Emphasis supplied). This according to Shri
Dwarkadas is a clear indication that it was an accepted fact by the
Administrator that Section 13A was in force in UT of Daman and
Diu. The said notification of 2008 was issued by an order and in
the name of the Administrator of Daman and Diu.
65. As we have discussed hereinabove, the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act and consequently Section 13A was not brought
into force and, therefore, the notification dated 5.2.2008
46 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 47 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
prescribing the Rules itself is without foundation. In this context,
Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has its application. It
reads thus:
“22. Making of rules or bye-laws and issuing of orders
between passing and commencement of enactment.–
Where, by any Central Act or Regulation which is not to
come into force immediately, on the passing thereof, a
power is conferred to make rules or bye-laws, or to issue
orders with respect to the application of the Act or
Regulation, or with respect to the establishment of any
Court or office or the appointment of any Judge or officer
thereunder, or with respect to the person by whom, or the
time when, or the place where, or the manner in which, or
the fees for which, anything is to be done under the Act or
Regulation, then that power may be exercised at any time
after the passing of the Act or Regulation; but rules, bye-
laws or orders so made or issued shall not take effect till the
commencement of the Act or Regulation.”
66. Therefore, even under this provision, the Rules so made
or issued, could not take effect till the commencement of the Act or
Regulation. In the present case, since the Central Government had
not notified the date on which the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was
to come into force for UT of Daman and Diu, the Rules made
thereunder could not have taken effect till commencement of the
1992 Goa Amendment Act for UT of Daman and Diu.
47 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 48 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
Again the contention of the Petitioners is that since the
Rules were published in the year 2008 with a preamble “the Act as
in force” which would mean that the Act was already in force and,
therefore, the Administrator was well within his powers to issue
and publish the Rules. As we have discussed earlier unless the Act
was in force the Rules could not have their effect. The Rules
derived their life from the parent Act which in this case was not in
force.
67. There is another angle to the power to publish the
notification, regarding the date of appointment of publication on
which, the Amendment Act was to come into force for UT of
Daman and Diu. The 1998 notification, as mentioned earlier, uses
the words “the 1992 amendment shall come into force on such date
as the “Central Government” may by notification in the Official
Gazette appoint. (Emphasis supplied)
68. Shri Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners submitted that the Central Government would include
the ‘Administrator’ for UT of Daman and Diu as per Section 3(8)(b)
(iii) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The relevant provision is as
follows:
48 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 49 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt“3. Definitions.– In this Act, and in all Central Acts and
Regulations made after the commencement of this Act,
unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or
context,–
xxxxx
xxxxx
(8) “Central Government” shall,–
(a) xxxxx
(b) in relation to anything done or to be done after the
commencement of the Constitution, mean the President; and
shall include,–
(i) xxxxx
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) in relation to the administration of a Union
territory, the administrator thereof acting within the scope of
the authority given to him under article 239 of the
Constitution;”
69. Article 239 of the Constitution reads thus :
“239. Administration of Union territories.– (1) Save as
otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union
territory shall be administered by the President acting, to
such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be
appointed by him with such designation as he may specify.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part VI, the
President may appoint the Governor of a State as the
administrator of an adjoining Union territory, and where a
Governor is so appointed, he shall exercise his functions as
such administrator independently of his Council of
Ministers.”
49 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 50 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
70. It is the contention of Shri Dwarkadas that the
Administrator of UT of Daman and Diu had powers to appoint a
date on which the 1992 Goa Amendment Act was to come into
force for UT of Daman and Diu. He also had powers to publish the
Rules under Section 13A. The very fact that the Rules in the year
2008 were published on his behalf with the preamble mentioning
that the 1992 Amendment Act “as in force” would mean that the
Administrator had in fact published not only the Rules but also the
Act; which was well within his powers.
71. Shri Dwarkadas referred to the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Uttam Ravankar, M/s. Punjab
Tin Supply Co., Chandigarh, and Sushil Flour Dal & Oil Mills in
respect of the power of the Administrator. In view of the above
discussion, the ratio of these judgments would not be applicable to
the facts of the present case before us.
72. Shri Anturkar on the other hand submitted that the
power vested in the Administrator was not uncontrolled or equal to
that of the Central Government or the President but it was
restricted within the scope of the authority given to the
50 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 51 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Administrator under Article 239 of the Constitution. The use of the
words “scope of the authority given to him” in Section 3(8)(b)(iii)
of the General Clauses Act limits his authority which had to be
specifically conferred on him. No such authority is shown by the
Petitioners and, therefore, the Administrator did not have authority
to appoint a date for bringing the 1992 Goa Amendment Act into
force.
73. In our opinion Shri Anturkar is right in his submission
in that behalf. He has also rightly pointed out that whenever the
Legislature wants to define the role of the Administrator as that of
the Central Government in bringing into force a particular statute,
they have used the separate specific words in different statutes. In
contrast to the 1998 notification referring specifically to the Central
Government with reference to the appointed date of bringing the
1992 Goa Amendment Act into force; Section 1(3) of the Dadra
And Nagar Haveli And Daman And Diu Tenancy Regulation, 2023
refers to the Administrator. Said Section reads thus :
“1(3) It shall come into force on such date as the
Administrator may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint and different dates may be appointed for different
51 of 60::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 52 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odtprovisions of this Regulation and any reference in any such
provision to the commencement of this Regulation shall be
construed as a reference to the coming into force of that
provision.” (Emphasis supplied). Same is the case with the Delhi School Education Act,
1973. Section 1(3) thereof reads thus:
“1. Short title, extent and commencement. —
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Administrator
may, by notification, appoint and different dates may be
appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference
to the commencement of this Act in relation to any provision
thereof shall be construed as a reference to the date on which
that provision comes into force.” (Emphasis supplied). The Goa, Daman and Diu (Authority for Use of Eyes for
Therapeutic Purposes) Act, 1981 is again similar. Section 1(3)
thereof reads thus :
“1. Short title and commencement. —
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Administrator
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.”
(Emphasis supplied)
52 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 53 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
74. Thus, wherever the Legislature wanted to use the word
“Administrator” they have specifically used it. On the contrary, as
far as the 1998 notification is concerned the power is retained with
the Central Government to appoint a date for bringing the
Amendment Act of 1992 into force. Thus, the Administrator did
not have the power to appoint a date for bringing the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act into force and consequently he could not have
stated in the 2008 notification that the said Act was in force.
75. The submission of Shri Dwarkadas learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner was that the Administrator had rejected
the application for grant of license. He had not stated that the
license could not be granted or that there was prohibition on the
games, but when he rejected the application, he had exercised the
powers under Section 13A. We are unable to agree with this
submission. The fact remains that the Administrator had not
granted the license to the Petitioners to use those machines, which
as of today is prohibited. As submitted by Shri Anturkar, as on
today, the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Public
Gambling Act, 1976 is made applicable from 20.4.2022. This Act
does not have the saving provision of Section 13A referred to in the
53 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 54 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
1992 Goa Amendment Act and, therefore, as of today there is no
saving clause which would permit use of those machines even in a
five-star hotel. Therefore, we are of the opinion that we cannot
issue a writ of mandamus directing the Administrator to issue
licenses to the Petitioners to enable them to use such machines
because use of those machines would be in violation of the existing
law and in fact would be an offence under the Act which is in
existence as of today.
76. In any case, the notification of 2008 was withdrawn
vide another notification in the year 2014. Shri Dwarkadas
submitted that the Petitioners had made their application on
14.3.2014 and the withdrawal notification was issued on 28.4.2014
and, therefore, the withdrawal notification could not have affected
the Petitioners’ application and that the authorities were bound to
consider those applications as per the existing Rules. He has
referred to the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited in that
behalf. With reference to Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act
his contention was that the repeal did not affect any right,
privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under
such enactment which is repealed. However, in the present case we
54 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 55 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
are of the opinion that issuance of the Rules under the 2008 Rules
itself was without any basis. Therefore, withdrawal of such rule
could not mean that those rules were validly issued in the year
2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioners have
incurred right or privilege under the 2008 Rules.
77. Both the learned Senior Counsel made their
submissions on the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate
expectation. Shri Dwarkadas referred to the letter dated
12.10.2007 addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner
No.1 wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner No.1’s request
for granting license for operating games of electronic
amusement/slot machines was examined and it was found that the
such activity was permissible under the 1992 Goa Amendment Act
which extended to UT of Daman and Diu. Shri Dwarkadas relied on
this letter as well as the Rules issued in the year 2008 to contend
that the Administrator had made a promise that such activity was
permissible and that the UT had no objection for granting license
for operating those games in a five-star hotel.
78. Shri Dwarkadas referred to a few judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the principles of promissory
55 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 56 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
estoppel and legitimate expectation. In the case of Motilal Padampat
Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 14, in
paragraph-24, it was observed that where the Government makes a
promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the
promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters
his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise
and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at
the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no
consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in
the form of a formal contract. It was further held that no one,
howsoever high or low, is above the law. Everyone is subject to the
law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no
exception. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and
rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a
private individual. If the Government makes such a promise and
the promisee acts in reliance upon it and alters his position, there is
no reason why the Government should not be compelled to make
good such promise like any other private individual.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the
doctrine of promissory estoppel was equitable and it must yield
14 (1979) 2 SCC 409
56 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 57 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government
that it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise
made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the
promise and enforce the promise against the Government. If the
Government were required to carry out the promise, the Court
would have to balance the public interest in the Government
carrying out a promise made to a citizen which has induced the
citizen to act upon it and alter this position and the public interest
likely to suffer if the promise were required to be carried out by the
Government and determine which way the equity lies.
79. Said judgment in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar
Mills Co. Ltd. was followed in the case of Manuelsons Hotels Private
Limited. Both these judgments in turn were referred to in the case
of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.. In
addition, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was also considered
in this judgment. It was observed that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation was not merely grounded on analogy to the doctrine of
promissory estoppel. A few other judgments were considered in the
said case and some of the observations made in those judgments
were approved. The approved observations mentioned that the
57 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 58 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
claims based on legitimate expectation are required to be tested in
consonance with the public interest.
80. Shri Dwarkadas, therefore, submitted that based on the
promise made by the Administrator in the year 2007, the Petitioner
had made an application for grant of license and, therefore, the
Administrator was bound by his own promise made to him vide the
aforesaid letter dated 12.10.2007. Shri Dwarkadas submitted that
he has altered his position and in fact invested a huge amount.
81. From the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, we find that, in the present case, the Petitioners cannot take
recourse to the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate
expectation because rejection of the application for license is based
on public policy. It was within the domain of the Legislature and
the Administrator to consider what is the policy that serves the best
interest of the people in the UT of Daman and Diu. It was their
policy decision and in this case, the Court cannot interfere in the
policy decision. Shri Dwarkadas relied on some resolutions passed
by some panchayats in the area. However, that does not affect the
power of the policy makers to consider what is the best policy for
the people in that area.
58 of 60
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 59 : CIVIL-WP--317-19J.odt
82. In the present case, the 2014 withdrawal notification
shows that it was not in the best interest of the people in that
locality to have the slot machines / electronic amusements used in
a five-star hotel in the UT of Daman and Diu. Since the policy is
issued in the public interest, writ of mandamus based on the
doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation cannot be
passed.
83. Even otherwise, as discussed above, the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act was not brought into force. Consequently, Section
13A referred to hereinabove was not in operation and, therefore,
the then Administrator had no authority to make that promise.
Even otherwise, such promise had its life only for three years
within which the Petitioners had to abide by the conditions. The
Application for grant of license was made much later in the year
2014 which was beyond the period of three years from 2007 when
the so called promise was made by the Administrator. Though
there is correspondence between the MHA and the Petitioners and
the MHA and the Administrator referring to the 1992 Goa
Amendment Act, the existing rules, etc., the fact remains that the
1992 Goa Amendment Act was never brought into force for UT of
59 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::
: 60 : CIVIL-WP–317-19J.odt
Daman and Diu. As mentioned earlier, as of today, the operation of
slot machines as per the 1992 Act is strictly prohibited and in fact
would be an offence and therefore it is not possible to issue
directions or writ of mandamus to the authorities directing them to
grant license to operate those electronic amusement/slot machines
in the Petitioners’ five-star hotel.
84. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the
reliefs claimed in the present Petition cannot granted. The Petition
is accordingly dismissed.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2026.04.29
12:33:11 +0530
60 of 60
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2026 03:11:35 :::