1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2008 M/s. Trade Wings Hotels Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 6 Mascarenhas Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji, Goa-403 001 Through its authorized Representative Mr. Valigno Dias Aged 38 years, son of Santan Dias, in service, married, resident of H. No.1, Opp. Laxmi Petroleum, Vasco da Gama, Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Secretariat Complex, Porvorim Goa. 2. Under Secretary(Home) State of Goa & duly constituted 'Authority' under the rules framed by Section 13 A of the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976, with office at Secretariat Complex, Porvorim-Goa. ... Respondents Mr. E. O. Mendes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.:- The Petitioner is a company which owns and operates a Beach Resort in Bogmallo Village. The Petitioner had obtained a license under the Goa Public Gambling Act, 1976, in the year 1998. The initial license was for a period w.e.f. 17-7-1998 to 16-7-2003. The said license was renewed for a further period w.e.f. 17-7-2003 to 16-7-2008. After expiry of the renewed license period on 16-7-2008 the Petitioner submitted an application for renewal to the concerned authority on 28-7-2008, though the application bears the date 17-6-2008. Rule 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 which regulates the renewal of license lays down the conditions in relation to making of an application for license so also its renewal. Under Section 5(vi) a licensee is obliged to make an application for renewal of license 30 days before the expiry of the license. It is thus clear that if the application for renewal is made by the licensee in accordance with the rules the said application for renewal would be considered in terms of Rule 5. In the present case, such application is admittedly made after the expiry of a period of renewed license. Thus there is no obligation on the Respondents to consider the application for renewal of license under Rule 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the renewal granted by Order dated 28-10-2003 for a period w.e.f. 17-7-2003 to 16-7-2008 3 ought to have been for a period commencing from 28-10-2003 to 27-10-2008 i.e. for a period of 5 years from the date of the order and not from the date of expiry of the license period. We cannot entertain a challenge to the Order dated 28-10-2003 in regard to the period for which it is issued after the Petitioner had availed of the benefit of the period stipulated in the order. Thus, the Petitioner's prayer cannot be favourably considered. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in reply stating therein that if the Petitioner desires to have a license under the said Act the Petitioner is required to make an application. It is further stated that if the Petitioner makes an application for a fresh license, the Respondents will consider the same in accordance with law. We accept the said statement. We reject the Writ Petition in limine as devoid of any merit. We make it clear that if the Petitioner makes a fresh application the Respondents shall deal with it in accordance with law. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD