GANDHI AND CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Honble Minsiter debarring the petitioners from the grant of book makers licence for a period of three years, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

(2.) The petitioners are a firm engaged in the business of book makers since over 30 years. On the 4th December, 1986 an incident took place which resulted in the passing of the impugned order. On that day which happened to be a race day at the Royal Western India Turf Club, Bombay, the second respondent herein, one Shri Agarwal who was employed with the petitioners for about 20 years and was engaged as a runner was found coming out of the stall of the petitioners. He was arrested by the police and his statement came to be recorded at the Police Station. The said statement revealed that Shri Agarwal was not authorised to occupy the stall of the certain notings which indicated that certain illegal betting were being accepted. On the 11th December, 1986 the Senior Inspector of Police, C.I.D. addressed his communication to the Secretary of the second respondent bringing to his notice the aforesaid facts for the purpose of taking necessary action. The stewards of the second respondent initiated proceedings both against the petitioners as also Shri Agarwal. So far as Shri Agarwal was concerned, he was warned off. The petitioners consequently dismissed him from service. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were held vicariously liable in regard to the acceptance of illegal bets and were fined Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner paid the said fine and suffered the said penalty. They, however, continued their business of book makers for the year June 1986 to June 1987.

(3.) Since the petitioner were required to renew their licence year to year, they applied to the second respondent for the renewal of the licence for the period June 1987 to June 1988. The racing season at Pune commenced on the 8th July, 1987. The petitioners could not engage themselves as book makers in that season as their licence had not been renewed by the second respondent. On the 15th July ,1987 they enquired with the second respondent who by its communication dated the 17th July, 1987 regretted their inability to grant the licence. No reasons were assigned for the refusal. The petitioners were, therefore, constrained to file in this Court, Writ Petition No. 2441 of 1987, wherein an order was passed on the 7th August, 1987 issuing rule and granting interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clause (c) of that petition. In pursuance of the grant of the said prayer, the petitioners were granted licence. The first respondent challenged the aforesaid order by preferring Appeal No. 1050 of 1987 but the same was summarily dismissed by the Appeal Bench on the 7th September, 1987. Before the expiry of the said licence the petitioners some time at the end of March 1988 applied to the second respondent for renewal. However, on the 14th June 1988, the Home Department of the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be granted book makers licence for a period of three years commencing from the racing season of 1988-89. The charges levelled against the petitioners were the very same which were the subject matter of the charge enquired into by the second respondent viz. the finding of Shri Agarwal in the stall of the petitioners and on the recording of his statement it was revealed that he was in possession of certain notings which indicated the acceptance of illegal betting. The petitioners by their reply dated the 27th June, 1988 showed cause and, inter alia, submitted that there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Government to reopen the matter which were concluded by the findings of the second respondent, the Turf Club and to expose the petitioners to double jeopardy. They further contended that the said show cause notice, which was based entirely on the uncorroborative statement of Shri Agarwal, which statement was taken under coercion by the police, was not justifiable. They requested the first respondent to keep Shri Agarwal present at the time of the personal hearing so as to give them an opportunity to cross-examine him. They also denied the allegations contained in the show cause notice.