Vinod Shankarlala Sankat v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal And Security),Mumbai And ANR.

2025:BHC-NAG:14818 1 38-WP-2136-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2136 OF 2025 Mr. Vinod Shankarlala Sankat Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Y.A. Kullarwar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. H.D. Dube, AGP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J .

DATED : 19 th DECEMBER, 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for the respondent/State.

2.

This petition takes an exception to the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur and the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, by which the petitioner's application for renewal of the gaming license came to be rejected.

3.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inference about the breach of conditions of license, on account of shifting of the license from the earlier premises, is drawn without taking into consideration the intimation of shifting, which was given by the petitioner in the year 2011 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's license was renewed in the year 2011-2012 and again in the year 2013, when the license was being run at their newly shifted premises. He further submitted that at the time of granting renewals, the Authorities were aware that

2 38-WP-2136-2025.odt the license was shifted to a new premises and there is no question of any concealment or breach of license conditions, as alleged.

4.

As regards the contention of the petitioner that the intimation about the shifting was given in the year 2011 itself, the reply filed on behalf of the respondents generally states that no intimation was received from the petitioner about the same. However, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submits that the authorities were made aware about the shifting of the license right from the year 2011 itself and even the renewals of license granted in the year 2011, 2012 and 2013, were issued after due enquiry and as such, inference of breach of conditions is without any basis.

5.

Having regard to the controversy involved, it appears that the issue about intimation given by the petitioner regarding the shifting of the license was required to be properly looked into by the authority, particularly because the renewals were granted subsequent to the dates of the intimation, after conducting enquiry.

6.

In view of the above, the matter needs to be remanded to the licensing authority i.e. respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Hence, the following Order :-

O R D E R

(i) Orders dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur and order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.1 are hereby quashed and set-aside.

3 38-WP-2136-2025.odt (ii) The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur, for deciding the application for renewal of license afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing.

7.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . ) Privel