Probo Media Technologies Private Ltd vs The Director General Of Police ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 208 Chatt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

particular 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

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

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 492002

Sr.-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:

• 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:-

"[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

diligence 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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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,

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,

only 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

such 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

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

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

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