Subordinate rules cannot take effect until the parent enactment is formally notified and brought into force.

The Petitioner No. 1 operates 'The Deltin', a five-star hotel in Daman.

In 2007, the Petitioners sought permission to install electronic amusement/slot machines, relying on Section 13A of the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992, which they claimed was extended to the UT of Daman and Diu.

The Respondent No. 1 issued an "in-principle" NOC on 12.10.2007, citing the 1992 Amendment Act as applicable.

In 2008, the UT Administration published a notification outlining the application procedure for licenses.

Acting on these representations, the Petitioners invested approximately ₹450 Crores to build the hotel, completing it in 2010.

When the Petitioners formally applied for 140 slot machine licenses in 2014, the authorities delayed and eventually rejected the application on 31.08.2018, stating all casino-related applications were rejected as a matter of policy.

The Respondents later contended that the 1992 Amendment Act was never actually brought into force in Daman and Diu.

1. Whether the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 (specifically Section 13A) was legally in force in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a license based on the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

3. Whether the 2008 notification prescribing license rules could take effect if the parent Amendment Act had not been notified for commencement.

The court primarily applied Section 1(2) of the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 as modified by the 1998 extension notification, which mandated that the Act would come into force only on a date appointed by the Central Government via the Official Gazette.

Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which stipulates that rules or bye-laws made before the commencement of an Act do not take effect until the Act itself commences.

Principle from Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, establishing that publication in the Gazette is a condition precedent for the enforceability of law.

Doctrine from Hero Motocorp Limited v. Union of India, which holds that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the legislature or against larger public interest/policy.

The court found that while the 1992 Amendment Act was extended to Daman and Diu in 1998, the Central Government—and not the Administrator—retained the exclusive power to "appoint" the commencement date by notification.

Since no such notification was ever published by the Central Government, Section 13A (which permits slot machines) never became law in the territory.

Consequently, the 2008 Rules issued by the Administrator were void ab initio under Section 22 of the General Clauses Act because the parent provision (Section 13A) had not commenced.

Regarding promissory estoppel, the court reasoned that any promise made by the Administrator was unauthorized and "ultra vires" because he lacked the legal authority to bypass the Central Government’s notification requirement.

The court held that the 2014 withdrawal of the licensing scheme was a valid policy decision in the public interest, which overrides equitable claims of estoppel.

The prayer for a writ of mandamus was refused because the court cannot direct an authority to act in violation of the current law—specifically the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 (as of 2022), which prohibits such machines.

The principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were held inapplicable against statutory prohibitions and public policy.

The Writ Petition was dismissed.