Bombay HC: Slot Machines Illegal in Daman & Diu Without Central Notification

The Bombay High Court, in Delta Corp Limited and Another v. U.T. Administration of Daman and Diu, refused to grant a licence for operating electronic amusement/slot machines in a five-star hotel in Daman and Diu. It held that the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992, never came into force in the Union Territory as no date was notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Consequently, operation of slot machines in Daman and Diu remains prohibited.

A Division Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Sandesh D. Patil heard a challenge to the refusal to grant licences for installation of electronic amusement/slot machines in a five‑star hotel at Daman and Diu and examined whether the amendment that introduced Section 13A was ever lawfully brought into force for the Union Territory.

The Court dismissed the petition and held that the amendment which introduced Section 13A was never brought into force for the Union Territory of Daman and Diu because the mode of commencement prescribed by the extending notification required a date to be appointed and published by the Central Government which was not done. The Court relied on Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another ( "2026 SCC OnLine SC 101": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 49) to highlight the settled principle that delegated legislation and changes by executive notification must be published in the Official Gazette to become operative, observing that "Law, to bind, must first exist. And to exist, it must be made known in the manner ordained by the legislature."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 Daman and Diu."

Background:
The petition arose from an application by the hotel owners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the administration to issue a licence under Section 13A of the Goa, Daman And Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 to operate electronic amusement/slot machines in their five‑star hotel. The petitioners relied on an in‑principle letter of 12.10.2007 and on a 2008 local notification prescribing forms and procedure which contained a preamble stating that the Administrator authorised such games under Section 13A. The administration, however, relied on a 1998 central notification which had extended the 1992 Goa Amendment Act to Daman and Diu subject to a proviso that it would come into force "on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint." The Court found that no such date was appointed or published by the Central Government and that the 2008 rules therefore had no legal foundation.

The Court considered submissions on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation raised by the petitioners, who argued that they had incurred substantial expenditure in reliance on the earlier communications and published rules. The Bench recorded that even accepting reliance, the grant of relief was constrained by public policy and the existing statutory position: the parent enactment introducing Section 13A had not been lawfully commenced for the Territory and, in any event, a subsequent enacted public gambling law applicable to the merged territories did not contain the saving in Section 13A. The Court therefore held that it could not issue a mandamus to permit conduct that would be in breach of the law as it then stood and that policy considerations and public interest precluded enforcement of the alleged promise.

The Court expressly relied on the principle from Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another ( "2026 SCC OnLine SC 101": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 49) that publication in the Gazette was indispensable to the enforceability of delegated legislation and subordinate rules, and it interpreted Section 13A of the Goa, Daman And Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 in that light. The petition was dismissed.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2019
Case Title: Delta Corp Limited and another Versus U.T. Administration of Daman and Diu, through the Department of Tourism and others
Appearances: (List advocates if available, for both sides using the format)
For the Petitioner(s): 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 Respondent(s): Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Dr. Sanjay Jain, Aayush Kedia, Jugal Haria, Ms. Kashish Chelani, Atharva Date, Harshavardhan Suryawanshi, Deepam Upadhyay

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 199