Karnataka high court prohibits all racing, betting activities at Bangalore Turf Club – Times of India

BENGALURU: In a major setback for Bangalore Turf Club (BTC) and associations representing racehorse owners, jockeys, punters and trainers, a division bench of Karnataka high court Saturday issued a prohibitory order, restraining all horse racing and betting activities on BTC premises.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind passed this order on a writ appeal filed by the state govt.

The writ appeal will be taken up by the court on August 13. This prohibition will be in force till the pendency of writ petitions before the single bench and will be subject to the outcome of those petitions.

The bench directed that the interim order passed by a single bench of the high court on June 18 – to allow racing and betting – be kept under suspension.

Bench erred, no overlooking criminal cases pending against accused: Court
From clear prima facie reading of the provisions of the Mysore Race Course Licensing Act, 1952, and Mysore Race Course Licensing Rules, 1952, it has to be observed that on one hand, there is no right to get licence for horse racing as such, unless the conditions are satisfied. On the other hand, the grant or refusal of the licence lies in the discretionary realm of the authorities,” the division bench observed.



The division bench further noted that the single bench overlooked the fact that betting could be carried out by both licensed as well as non-licensed bookies, clandestinely, from within the BTC premises or outside and bookies may even operate from outside the city.

“The criminal cases pending against the accused persons could not have been overlooked. The single bench erred in observing that in the facts of the case, extraordinary jurisdiction was required to be invoked and that it was exceptional to grant the interim stay and permit horse racing,” the high court said.

The division bench further commented that based on “the pendency of criminal cases against the office-bearers of the club (BTC), the potentiality of the event degenerating into illegal activities and the grounds mentioned in the impugned order that are cogent, it cannot be said that prima facie, in refusing the grant of licence, the competent authority did not exercise its discretion properly”.

Discretionary issue

“The single judge was not justified in substituting its own discretion. When the discretion was properly exercised by the authority, there was no prima facie case for the petitioners to seek any interim relief of the kind and nature granted by the single judge,” the bench added. “The management (of BTC) cannot claim impunity and cannot claim to be absolved of the activities of the bookies and their assistants. Section 4 (4) provides that licensee can be and is authorised to issue permit to the bookmaker to operate,” the bench noted.