Vinod Shankarlala Sankat vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal and Security),Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Shankarlala Sankat vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal and Security),Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 20.02.2017 (Licensing Authority, Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur) and 09.12.2022 (Appellate Authority, respondent No.1); remission of the renewal application to respondent No.2 for fresh decision after proper opportunity of hearing; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the question of the intimation given by the petitioner regarding the shifting of the licensed premises (said to have been given in 2011) was properly considered by the authorities, particularly given that renewals were granted after the dates of the intimation and after conducting enquiry, and consequently whether the rejection of the renewal application for alleged breach of licence conditions could stand.

Court's answer

The authority had not properly looked into the issue of the intimation given by the petitioner regarding the shifting of the licence, even though the renewals were granted subsequent to the dates of the intimation and after conducting enquiry; the matter therefore required fresh consideration.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Licensing Authority (Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur) rejecting the renewal application is quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) is likewise quashed and set aside.ratio¶18
The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 (Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur) to decide the application for renewal of the licence afresh, after giving proper opportunity of hearing.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gaming licence renewal — shifting of licensed premises — intimation of shifting said to have been given in 2011 — renewal rejected by Licensing Authority (Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur) by order dated 20.02.2017 for alleged breach of licence conditions; rejection upheld by Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) by order dated 09.12.2022 — petitioner contended that renewals for 2011-2012 and 2013 were granted while the licence ran at the newly shifted premises, and that the renewals of 2011, 2012 and 2013 were issued after due enquiry, negating any concealment or breach; respondents' reply merely stated no intimation was received — Court held the intimation issue required proper look-in, particularly as renewals followed the intimation after conducting enquiry — Both impugned orders quashed and set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh decision on the renewal application after giving proper opportunity of hearing — Writ petition partly allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs. (Single Judge: Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J., Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; decision dated 19.12.2025; Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:14818.)

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 Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar'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 : 19th DECEMBER, 2025

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁