SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU, CJI., R.K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association – Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3518 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3519 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3520 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 641 OF 2007 AND WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233 OF 2010
Decided On : 05-11-2015
(1999) 9 SCC 700 – Relied upon
(b) Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 – Section 12 and section 5 r/w Article 246 and Item 34, List II, Seventh Schedule – Section 12 enabling State to frame Rules – State framing Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2005 – Not abdication of legislative power – All online lotteries banned uniformly under the Rules – Rules not bereft of any guidelines – Prohibition in keeping pace with contemporaneous developments – No infirmity. (Para 30, 34, 38, 40)
(1999) 9 SCC 700; (1962) 3 SCR 146; (1996) 2 SCC 428; (1999) 4 SCC 567 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The State of Kerala, by notification dated 13.01.2005 prohibited the sale of all computerized and online lottery tickets marketed and operated through vending machines, terminals, electronic machines and tickets sold through internet in the State with immediate effect and declared that Kerala shall be a free zone from online and internet lotteries.
By a subsequent notification dated 27.01.2005, the State of Kerala prohibited the sale of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by the State as well as by every other State Government in the State of Kerala and declared that the State shall thereafter be a Lottery Free Zone.
In partial modification of the notification dated 27.01.2005 the State of Kerala permitted the sale of paper lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government including the State of Kerala and the prohibition imposed on the sale of computerized and on-line lottery tickets organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government continued to remain in force declaring the territory of the State of Kerala to be online, internet and computerized lotteries free zone.
The All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association, State of Sikkim and one Sreekala and others filed Writ Petitions before the High Court which were dismissed.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
R.K. Agrawal, J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3518-3520
1) These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal Nos. 2011, 2012 and 2235 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2005 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 14495, 16063 and 19582 of 2005.
2) Brief facts:
(a) The State of Kerala, by notification dated 13.01.2005, issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, (in short ‘the Act’), prohibited the sale of all computerized and online lottery tickets marketed and operated through vending machines, terminals, electronic machines and tickets sold through internet in the State with immediate effect and declared that Kerala shall be a free zone from online and internet lotteries.
(b) By a subsequent notification dated 27.01.2005, the State of Kerala decided to prohibit the sale of all lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by the State as well as by every other State Government in the State of Kerala with immediate effect and declared that the State shall hereafter be a Lottery Free Zone.
(c) The State of Kerala, in partial modification of the notification dated 27.01.2005, issued a subsequent notification dated 22.04.2005, permitting the sale of paper lotteries organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government including the State of Kerala and the prohibition imposed on the sale of computerized and on-line lottery tickets organized, conducted or promoted by every State Government continued to remain in force declaring the territory of the State of Kerala to be online, internet and computerized lotteries free zone.
(d) Being aggrieved by the notification dated 22.04.2005 discriminating between the paper lotteries and online lotteries, the All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association, State of Sikkim and one Sreekala and others filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 19582, 14495 and 16063 of 2005 respectively before the High Court.
(e) A learned single Judge of the High Court, by judgment and order dated 27.07.2005, dismissed the writ petitions.
(f) Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the petitioners therein preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 2011, 2012 and 2235 of 2005 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
(g) The Division Bench, by a common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006, dismissed the appeals.
(h) Against the said order, the appellants have preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 641 of 2007 and 233 of 2010
(a) One Bibhash Karmakar-the petitioner herein has filed the above petitions in public interest alleging that the States of Sikkim, Nagaland and Goa are running lottery business contrary to the provisions of the Act which is detrimental to the society as a whole.
(b) This Court, by order dated 27.11.2009 in Writ Petition (C) No. 641 of 2007, directed the State to explain as to whether the State of Sikkim is running lottery business contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In response to the above, the State Government filed an affidavit dated 10.12.2009 before this Court denying all the irregularities as claimed by the petitioner herein and cited various provisions of the Act as well as the Sikkim Online Network Lottery Rules, 2001 to show that the lottery business in the State is in consonance with the pre-existing rules and regulations.
(c) This Court, by order dated 21.06.2010, tagged Writ Petition (C) No. 233 of 2010 with Writ Petition (C) No. 641 of 2007.
3) Heard the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the records. Since a common question of law and facts arise in these appeals and petitions, the
B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum v. Securities & Exchange Board of India
Ratnabali Capital Markets Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India
B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P.
The Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.