Video Game Parlours Don’t Need NOC: Maharashtra Police Tells HC

The Maharashtra police on January 29 told the Bombay High Court (HC) that video gaming parlours don't need to have a no-objection certificate (NOC) from them. The issue comes under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.

This happened in response to a writ suit. Ashok Gopal Shetty and Harish Babu Shetty, owners of Sai Video Game Parlours, filed the suit, claiming they were harassed by law enforcement for operating without a NOC.

The petitioners stated they had paid taxes since 2002. They had a licence under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923. But they didn't have a NOC. They claimed the police harassed them for this. They even said their parlour was closed in 2023 by police for the same reason.

The petitioners argued against the need for a NOC. They cited a March 2016 issue of the Maharashtra Police Act. It exempted video gaming parlours from needing a NOC.

A bench of justices studied the petitioners' claims. They confirmed that these claims are valid. However, they noted that some entertainment parlours were not covered by the notification. These parlours fell under certain sections of the Maharashtra Police Act. So, the court rules that not all video game parlours are exempt from the notification requirement.

The Mumbai deputy commissioner of police submitted an affidavit. It confirmed that the police were aware of the notification. But it clarified that amusement parlours covered by certain Maharashtra Police Act provisions were exempt from its application. The affidavit also stated that police officers had not visited or inquired about the NOC. And no complaints had been filed against the petitioners' establishment.

The court observed that the notification exempted video gaming parlours from licencing requirements. But this did not stop the police from acting under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.

This act gives the police the authority to act against establishments that use video game machines for unethical financial gain. Finally, the court rejected the petition. It found no more grounds for review.