Chattisgarh High Court
Probo Media Technologies Private Ltd vs The Director General Of Police … on 9 May, 2025
1
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
YOGESH
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2025.05.15
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
18:00:41
+0530
WPC No. 2531 of 2025
1 - Probo Media Technologies Private Ltd. Having Its Office At 8th
Floor, Paras Downtown, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurugram
122002, Haryana, Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Ankan
Pal S/o Mr. Amar Kanti Pal, Aged About 36 Years
2 - Ashish Garg S/o Mr. Sushil Kumar Garg Aged About 31 Years
Residing At 985, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Haryana
136118
... Petitioners
versus
1 - The Director General of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters,
Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, 492002, Chhattisgarh
2 - Inspector General of Police, Cyber Crime Police Headquarters,
Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, 492002, Chhattisgarh
3 - Inspector General of Police (Technical Service) Police
Headquarters, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, 492002,
Chhattisgarh
4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs, Having Its Office At Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Order-Sheet
2
09.05.2025 Heard Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Satish
Chandra Verma, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Amit
Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State.
Since Mr. Das has put in appearance on behalf of
the respondents, there is no need to issue notice to the
State/respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for
grant of interim relief.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioner No.1 is a private limited
Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013
and is engaged in the business of online gaming and
provides a platform through its mobile based application
and website wherein registered users can express their
opinions by registering trades depending on their
assessment as to the probability of outcome of a defined
future event as also to obtain the winnings of the said
3
trades, if successful. He further submits that a trade on the
petitioners’ platform is only complete when it is matched
with a complementary trade, i.e., a user who has taken the
opposite position on the specified event and there is a
direct competition between users on the platform,
involving exercise of skill and judgment between them. It is
contended that the platform provided by the petitioners is
purely peer-to-peer and there is no involvement of the
petitioners in the trades placed between users or their
competition against each other the petitioner merely acts
as an intermediary, which provides a technology platform
to facilitate the matching of users with each other in the
manner as stated above. The petitioners also provides
users with information sourced from publicly available
resources to help users process, collate and analyse
information relevant to a trade, so as to allow them to
decide on the probability of the future events on which
they are trading and the events having a 50-50% chance
of occurring are not allowed to be traded on. It has been
further contended that the petitioners offer a platform to
4
players to trade on their opinions of particular events in
fields like sports, finance, entertainment, etc. The fields of
inter alia finance, sports, entertainment, have been chosen
so that persons with greater expertise can showcase their
skills against those without commensurate expertise.
It has been argued that on 11.03.2025, a Public
Interest Litigation bearing WP(PIL) No. 37/2025 was
preferred by one Mr. Sunil Namdeo alleging inter alia that
platforms such as the petitioners’ were indulging in ‘betting
and gambling’ and therefore, violated the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (for short,
Act, 2022′) and as such, prayed that appropriate action be
taken against the petitoners for operation of illegal betting
platforms. On 24.03.2025, the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court issued notice to the petitioners along with others
as also directed the secretary to file his/her personal
affidavit in the matter and in compliance with the direction,
the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of
Home and Jail has filed the affidavit alleging that no cases
regarding online betting or fraud have been reported in
5
any of the District of Chhattisgarh, against the platforms
mentioned in the PIL (including Probo) as well as further
mentioned that the police was continuously taking action
against persons involved in illegal online betting and
gambling.
It has been further argued that during the said
period, respondent No.2 issued four communications
between 03.04.2025 and 22.04.2025, directing all ISPs
and TSPs to block a total of 154 websites operating illegal
games of betting and gambling and the said blocking
orders did not refer to the websites mentioned in the PIL,
including the instant petitioners’ platform. However, all of a
sudden, respondent No.2 issued a blocking order
specifically for the platforms mentioned in the PIL vide
impugned notice dated 05.05.2025.
It has been argued that impugned notice has been
issued without affording any opportunity to the petitioners
as the same has been issued in violation of the Act, 2022
as the same cannot extend to any territory outside the
State of Chhattisgarh. In this regard, he has placed
6
reliance in the matters of A.K. Kraipak and others v.
Union of India and others, (1969) 2 SCR 262 and
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC
664.
It has been further submitted that the impugned
notice is patently illegal inasmuch an order to take-down of
petitioners’ platform without recording any reasons, much
less clear and explicit reasons, which again in violation of
principles of natural justice and settled principles of law
and in this regard, reliance has been placed in the matter
of The Siemens Engineering and Manufacutring Co. Of
India Ltd. v. The Union of India and another, (1976) 2
SCC 981.
It has been argued that reference to Section 79(3)(b)
of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act‘)
is entirely misplaced and inapposite. Reliance has been
placed in the matter of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,
(2015) 5 SCC 1 to contend that the petitioners were not
given proper opportunity of hearing while blocking the
services of the petitioners online gaming App because the
7
burden rests upon respondent No.2 to demonstrate
compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated
under Section 69A of the IT Act. It has been further
contended that the petitioners have been subjected to the
said arbitrary action of the State, facing the prospect of a
take-down of its business website, effectively ceasing its
operations and affecting its business and commerce
despite preponderantly being a game of skill. In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the matters of
State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana and
others, (1968) 2 SCR 387, R.M.D Chamarbaugwalla
and another v. Union of India and another, AIR 1957
SC 628 as well as the judgment rendered by the High
Court of Karnataka in the matter of All India Gaming
Federation and others v. State of Karnataka and
another, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 435.
It has been also contended that the petitioners’
online platform requires a player to take a call on an event
being traded on, based on the knowledge, skill and
research of the player and the probability of success is
8
directly proportional to the knowledge, skill and research
of the player. The player has to necessarily have prior
knowledge of the subject, understand the category of the
listed events, analyse several current and likely future
factors, which would affect the outcome. It is only if these
elements are factored in that the player would succeed,
thereby making it a “Game of Skill’ and not a “Game of
Chance”.
Even the Act, 2022 does not place any embargo on
“Games of Skill, as evident from Section 15 of the Act,
2022, which specifically excludes ‘Games of Skill’ from the
applicability of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition)
Act, 2022. Reliance has been placed in the judgment
rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the
matter of Varun Gumber v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh and others, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5372
as well as the judgments rendered by the High Court of
Madras in the matter of Junglee Games India Private
Limited Represented by its Authorized Representative
Rahul Nandkumar Bhardwaj and another v. State of
9
Tamil Nadu Through Chief Secretary and others, 2021
SCC OnLine Mad 2762.
It has been argued that the gaming App of the
petitioners is a skill based gaming App, which is not
prohibited under the IT Act as well as IT Rules. There is a
difference between “Game of Skill” and “Game of
Chance”. “Game of Skill” means that outcome of the game
is predominantly determined by the knowledge, training,
expertise and experience of the participant whereas
“Game of Chance” means it determined by the chance
and luck, as such, the game which is being played in the
website of the petitioners namely https://probo.in/ is a
“Game of Skill” and not a “Game of Chance”, hence, it
cannot be prohibited by the impugned notice as there is no
violation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act as also Rule 3(1)
(D) of the IT Rules. Before issuance of notice, the
petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing and
nothing was disclosed as also without there being any
reason, the App of the petitioners was closed not only in
the State of Chhattisgarh but in the entire Country, for
10
which, the State is not having any authority.
It has been argued that the fields in which the
petitioners permit trading fall within the following three
broad categories, all of which requires preponderance of
skill for success:-
“a. The first category is ‘Performance
Based Event Contracts’ (primarily
pertaining to trades relating to sports,
which requires:-
i. Statistical analysis of performance
of a player/team in the recent past;
ii. Statistical analysis of the whole
career of a player;
iii. Statistical analysis of comparative
performance of each player/team with
otherplayers/teams;
iv. Current news about the
team/player;
v. Understanding the sport and
inherent technicalities involved in it;
vi. Information of all the news and
updates of the sporting event in
question;
vii. Analysis of past data of the
11particular sporting category.
b. The second category pertains to
‘Estimation-based Event Contracts’,
which requires:-
i. Analysis of the past trends and
seasonality of the data;
ii. Use of past experiences to predict
and/or model variations;
iii. Use of predictive analytics to
understand behaviour of data;
iv. An understanding of the inherent
distribution of data
c. The third category pertains to ‘Market
sentiment driven Event Contracts’,
which requires:-
i. Knowledge of various fluctuations in
market sentiment in society;
ii. Collection and analysis of
information regarding these event
contracts
iii. An understanding of the various
viewpoints and perspectives of
people.”
He lastly submits that the gaming App of the
petitioners incorporate element of mutation and
12
combination in its game-play, which combined with the
strategic nature of the game, contribute to it being
classified as a “Game of Skill” rather than a “Game of
Chance” and therefore, impugned notice dated 05.05.2025
be directed to be stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that
since the State authority is not having jurisdiction even
though for grant of interim relief, the petitioners undertakes
that they will block its App https://probo.in/ in the entire
State of Chhattisgarh till final disposal of this writ petition.
However, the petitioners may be permitted operation of its
website for the rest part of the Country.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate
General submits that the order impugned has rightly been
passed. He further submits that the petitioners were
contravening IT Act and are indulging persons by tempting
them for money, which cannot be said to be a skill game,
but it is a chance game. He further submits that WP(PIL)
No.37/2025 is already pending consideration before
Division Bench of this Court, in which an order has been
13
passed on 04.04.2025, directing the State as well as
Union of India to file their reply-affidavits, as such, the
instant petition is not maintainable before this Court. It has
been contended that on 06.05.2025, an affidavit has been
filed by the State, in which, a direction to block access of
the petitioners’ website has been issued in all probability
and possibility.
I have heard learned counsel for respective parties
and perused the relevant laws.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce
the impugned order dated 05.05.2025, which reads as
follows:-
“Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh
Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar 492002Sr.-PHQ/IGP/Technical Service/59/2025, Nava Raipur, Dated 05 May 2025
To,
All Internet and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs)
Subject : Immediate Blocking of Access to Website Links
under Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act, 2021.
1. Upon receiving complaints from verified intelligence
sources and physical verification Chhattisgarh Police found
that several websites links were involved in Online Gambling:
14
• Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act,
2000.
• Rule 3(1)(D) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• Under provisions 7, 8 Gambling Act 2022
Chhattisgarh and 79(3)(E) IT Act 2021.
The details of such illegal websites mentioned below:-
1. https://probo.in/
2. https://www.tradexapp.co/Home
3. https://sportsbaazi.com/
2. You are hereby directed to:
• Immediately block access to the above
websites/URLs from being accessed within the
territory of India, with priority enforcement in the State
of Chhattisgarh.
• Submit compliance reports to Chhattisgarh Police
within 36 hours of receipt of this notice with a copy to
14C, Ministry of Home Affairs.
This direction is issued in the public interest to prevent
exploitation and financial harm to citizens, and to uphoad the
provisions of Indian law.
Sd/-
Inspector General of Police (Technical Service),
Nodal Officer for Chhattisgarh State for issuing notices
to intermediaries under the section 79(3)(b) IT Act,
2000 and rule of the IT (IGDMEC) Rules, 2021 ”
Further, it would be relevant to extract Section 79(1)
(b) of the IT Act, which is reproduced before for easy
reference:-
15
“[79. Exemption from liability of
intermediary in certain cases.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
any law for the time being in force but
subject to the provisions of sub-sections
(2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be
liable for any third party information,
data, or communication link made
available or hosted by him.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1)
shall apply if-
(a) the function of the intermediary is
limited to providing access to a
communication system over which
information made available by third
parties is transmitted or temporarily
stored or hosted; or
(b) the intermediary does not-
(i) initiate the transmission,
(ii) select the receiver of the
transmission, and
(iii) select or modify the information
contained in the transmission;
(c) the intermediary observes due
16diligence while discharging his duties
under this Act and also observes
such other guidelines as the Central
Government may prescribe in this
behalf.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1)
shall not apply if-
(a) the intermediary has conspired or
abetted or aided or induced, whether
by threats or promise or otherwise in
the commission of the unlawful act;
(b) upon receiving actual
knowledge, or on being notified by
the appropriate Government or its
agency that any information, data
or communication link residing in
or connected to a computer
resource controlled by the
intermediary is being used to
commit the unlawful act, the
intermediary fails to expeditiously
remove or disable access to that
material on that resource without
vitiating the evidence in any
manner.
17
Explanation. – For the purposes of this
section, the expression “third party
information” means any information
dealt with by an intermediary in his
capacity as an intermediary.”
On 06.05.2025, the following order was passed in
WP(PIL) No.37/2025:-
“Heard Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. Prafull N.Bharat, learned Advocate
General, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned
Dy. Advocate General for respondent
No.1 to 4/State and Mr. Ramakant
Mishra, DSG assisted by Mr. Tushar
Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for
respondent No.4/Union of India and Mr.
Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel
for respondent No.5.
An affidavit has been filed by the
learned State counsel which is
reproduced here as under:
1. In compliance of the order dated
24/03/2025 passed by this Court,
18
following efforts and actions were
/taken by the respondents/State
against the extraction of illegal money
through online betting and gambling.
2. It is submitted that in Police Station
Khamtarai, District Raipur, an offence
under Section 7 and 8 of the
Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition)
Act, 2022 read with Section 420 /34
of the I.P.C. has also been registered
under Crime No.685/2023 and during
the course of investigation, the Police
has found that various online betting
apps and websites were run through
APK Files and apps in Google and
therefore, vide letter dated
07/11/2023 (Annexure A/5) a request
was made to suspend all the
websites and applications involved in
online betting.
3. It has also been submitted that
after the enactment of the Act, 2022,
the Police has taken continuously
action against the erring personnel
under the provisions contained in the
19
Act, 2022 and as on February, 2025
total 444 cases of online gambling
/Satta have been reported in which
1002 persons have been arrested
and in 383 cases are pending before
the competent court of law and the
police has seized the cash and other
articles amounting to Rs.
2,19,63,430/-.
4. In furtherance of the actions taken
for curbing the extraction of illegal
money by involving in gambling and
Satta and further for preventing the
social evil of gambling and online
gambling and to prevent the
consequential financial trouble on the
facilities in the State of Chhattisgarh,
the Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh
has again written a letter dated
05/05/2025 to All Internet and
Telecom Service Providers (TSPs)
directing them to immediately block
the access to website links under
Section 79(3) of the Information
Technology Act within the territory of
India with priority enforcement in the
20
State of Chhattisgarh, with further
direction to submit compliance
reports to the Police within 36 hours
of receipt of the notice with a copy to
14C, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Alongwith the letter, the notification to
Internet Service Provider (ISP) for
disabling assess to Unlawful
Information has also been supplied
and sent. Copy of the letter dated
05/05/2025 alongwith the notification
is being filed herewith as Annexure
A/1. In the said letter dated
05/05/2025, the details of the
websites engaged in illegally
extracting the money through online
betting and gambling have been
mentioned which are (i)
https://probo.in/(ii)https://www.tradexa
pp.co/Home(iii)htts://sportsbaazi.com/
, with a direction to block the access
of the said websites. It is submitted
that in all probability and possibility,
the access of the aforesaid websites
which are the respondent no. 5 and 6
herein, would be blocked by the
21
service provider agency.
5. In addition to the aforesaid
websites, on earlier occasions, on
03/04/2025, 04/04/2025, 09/04/2025
and 22/04/2025 the Police
Headquarter, Chhattisgarh has
written letters to All Internet and
Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to
block total 154 URL / websites so as
to curb the extraction of illegal money
through online betting and gambling
and also to prevent the social evil of
gambling and online gambling and to
prevent the consequential financial
trouble on the facilities in the State of
Chhattisgarh. Copies of the letters
dated 03/04/2025, 04/04/2025,
09/04/2025 and 22/04/2025 are filed
herewith as Annexure A/2 colly.
7. In addition to 444 cases of online
gambling /Satta reported in the earlier
affidavit, till March and April, 2025,
further 61 cases of online gambling
/Satta have been registered in which
141 persons have been arrested and
22
an amount of total Rs.49,98,270/- has
been seized. Copy of the details of
the action taken by the Police under
the Act, 2022 in various districts of
State is being filed herewith as
Annexure A/3.
8. To curb the tendency of extracting
illegal money through online betting
and gambling, all possible action has
continuously been taking by the
Police against the persons involved in
such illegal online betting and
gambling so that the very object and
purpose behind framing of the Act,
2022 could be achieved. It is further
respectfully submitted that the
deponent being a law abiding citizen,
is a duty bound to adhere to and
abide by the orders of the Hon’ble
Court.”
Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondent No.4/Union of India
states that immediate action would be
taken on the request made by the
Secretary, Department of Home Affairs,
23
vide its application dated 05.05.2025.
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondent No.5 seeks for and is
granted time to file return.
List this case in the month of July
2025.”
In the matter of Shreya Singhal (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“115. The Rules further provide for a
hearing before the Committee set up
which Committee then looks into
whether or not it is necessary to block
such information. It is only when the
Committee finds that there is such a
necessity that a blocking order is made.
It is also clear from an examination of
Rule 8 that it is not merely the
intermediary who may be heard. If the
“person” i.e. the originator is
identified he is also to be heard
before a blocking order is passed.
Above all. it is only after these
procedural safeguards are met that
blocking orders are made and in case
there is a certified copy of a court order,
24only then can such blocking order also
be made. It is only an intermediary who
finally fails to comply with the directions
issued who is punishable under sub-
section (3) of Section 69-A.”
In the matter of Junglee Games India Private
Limited (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held
as follows:-
“104. Gambling and gaming have
developed secondary meanings in
judicial parlance. Indeed, such words
had attained such connotations in the
pre-constitutional era that the nomen
juris cannot be shrugged off to
understand such words to mean or
imply anything other than how they
have been judicially interpreted.
Irrespective of what meanings are
ascribed to these words in dictionaries,
gambling is equated with gaming and
the activity involves chance to such a
predominant extent that the element of
skill that may also be involved cannot
control the outcome. A game of skill on
the other hand, may not necessarily be
25such an activity where skill must always
prevail; however, it would suffice for an
activity to be regarded as a game of
skill if, ordinarily, the exercise of skill
can control the chance element
involved in the activity such that the
better skilled would prevail more often
than not. The vagaries of the unknown
and unpredictable, and yet possible,
must be kept out of consideration to
determine whether an activity is a game
of skill. Even in everyday life, one never
ceases to ponder over what could have
been if the alternative had been chosen.
Seen from the betting perspective, if the
odds favouring an outcome are guided
more by skill than by chance, it would
be a game of skill. The chance element
can never be completely eliminated for
it is the chance component that makes
gambling exciting and it is the possibility
of the perchance result that fuels
gambling.”
Section 79(1)(b) of the IT Act outlines the conditions
under which an intermediary is exempt from liability and it
26
states that the exemption applies if the intermediary’s
function is limited to providing access to a communication
system where third-party information is transmitted or
temporarily stored as well as crucially, it also specifies that
the intermediary must not initiate the transmission, select
the receiver, or select or modify the information contained
in the transmission.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the parties as also relying upon the aforementioned
judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matters of Shreya Singhal (supra) as well as the High
Court of Madras in the matter of Junglee Games India
Private Limited (supra), prima facie, it transpires that the
App of the petitioners is not prohibited under the IT Act. It
further transpires that before issuance of notice, the
petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and
without there being any reason, the App of the petitioner
was blocked not only in the State of Chhattisgarh but in
the entire Country. It also transpires that betting and
27
gambling comes within List-2 i.e. State List whereas “Skill
Games” covers under the IT Act, which is a matter of List-1
i.e. Union List, as such, the State cannot pass orders in
respect of the matter of Union List. Further, “betting” on a
game of skill itself is an activity, in which success depends
on the skill of the player, is not universally true and even if
the game may be one of skill, the success of the person
betting would depend on how accurately the result of the
game can be guessed by someone who is not playing it
and also considering the fact that gaming App of the
petitioners incorporates element of mutation and
combination in its game-play, which combined with the
strategic nature of the game, contribute to it being
classified as a “Game of Skill” rather than a “Game of
Chance”.
Taking into account of overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that purely as an interim measure, the petitioners
are required to be restrained from using its website
namely https://probo.in/ in the State of Chhattisgarh and
28
accordingly, they are directed to block its website
https://probo.in/ in the State of Chhattisgarh. However, the
petitioners are permitted to operate its aforesaid website in
the other part of the Country, till the next date of hearing.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the
respondents are directed to file return within a period of
four weeks and thereafter, the petitioners are granted two
weeks time to file rejoinder, if so desired.
List the matter in the first week of August, 2025.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
[ad_1]
Source link