“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,” the Bombay High Court held on April 30, underlining that in the absence of a formal notification by the Central government.
Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Sandesh D Patil of the Bombay High Court made it clear that administrative assurances cannot substitute a formally notified law. (Image enhanced using AI)
Core issue: Was casino gaming ever legal in Daman?
At the heart of the dispute was whether Section 13A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, introduced through a 1992 amendment, was applicable in Daman and Diu.
The high court concluded that while the amendment was extended to the Union Territory in 1998, it was subject to a crucial condition- it would come into force only when the Central government notified a specific date.
However, no such notification was ever issued.
As a result, the Bombay High Court held that the provision allowing electronic amusement or slot machines in five-star hotels never became operational in Daman and Diu, and such activities remained prohibited.
The court made it clear that administrative assurances and policy signals cannot substitute a formally notified law, dealing a major blow to the company’s long-pending licence claim.
Story continues below this ad
Delta Corp’s case: Investment based on assurances
Delta Corp argued that it had invested over Rs 450 crore in building “The Deltin” hotel after receiving a “no objection” communication from the administration in October 2007, which indicated that licences could be granted subject to conditions.
The company also relied on a 2008 notification issued by the UT administration that laid down procedures for applying for licences to operate slot machines. According to the company, this demonstrated that the law permitting such gaming was in force.
Invoking the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, the company contended that the government could not backtrack after inducing such massive investment.
Government’s stand: No law, no licence
The Union Territory administration countered that the 1992 amendment was never enforced in Daman and Diu.
Story continues below this ad
The 2008 notification had no legal basis since the parent law was not in force.
The 2007 “no objection” letter required compliance within three years, which was not fulfilled
It further pointed to a policy decision taken in August 2018 to reject all casino licence applications in the territory, citing local conditions and stakeholder consultations.
Court’s findings
Rules can’t exist without law
The Bombay High Court rejected Delta Corp’s reliance on the 2008 notification, holding that subordinate legislation cannot operate independently of the parent statute.
Story continues below this ad
Since the 1992 amendment was never brought into force, any rules framed under it were legally ineffective.
No estoppel against statute
Dismissing the plea of promissory estoppel, the bench held that there can be no estoppel against law.
Even if administrative representations were made, they cannot override statutory requirements or create enforceable rights where none exist.
Policy decision valid
The high court upheld the 2018 decision of the UT administration to reject all licence applications, observing that it was a policy choice made in public interest and within the authority of the administration.
Story continues below this ad
Timeline of events
1976: Public Gambling Act enacted, prohibiting such gaming activities.
1992: Amendment introduces provision for slot machines in Goa.
1998: Amendment extended to Daman and Diu with condition of Central notification.
2007: Delta Corp receives “no objection” from UT administration.
2008: Notification issued prescribing licensing procedure.
2010: Construction of “The Deltin” hotel completed.
2014: Notification withdrawn.
2018: UT rejects all licence applications.
2026: Bombay High Court dismisses Delta Corp’s petition.
Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Sandesh D Patil of the Bombay High Court made it clear that administrative assurances cannot substitute a formally notified law. (Image enhanced using AI)