Back
2001 Supreme(Gau) 246
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N.Surjamani Singh, J.
State of Arunachal Pradesh : State of Nagaland -Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. -Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 6016 and 6052 of 2000
Decided On : 31-08-2001
A.K.Saraf, D.Barua, J.Deka, S.K.Agarwal, A.N.Choudhary, S.Saikia , R.Islam, R.B.Soni, P.K.Goswami, N.N.B.Choudhary, K.K.Mahanta, S.Sharma
Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, and the impugned letters were ultra vires to the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998.
Headnote:
The Court held that Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, framed by the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, including its note, is ultra vires to the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, and 12 of the Act and is, therefore, set aside. The Court also held that the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998, and 8.11.1998, as well as the impugned letters dated 12, 12A, and 12B, shall not be applicable in the case of the petitioners, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland, in the matter pertaining to the sale of petitioners' lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra through its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers, and retailers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland, challenged the validity of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, framed by the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, as well as the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998, and 8.11.1998, and the impugned letters dated 12, 12A, and 12B. The petitioners contended that the impugned Rule 9 and letters were ultra vires to the provisions of the Act and that they had been prevented from selling lottery tickets of lotteries organized by them within the State of Maharashtra.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, including its note, was ultra vires to the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, and 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, and was, therefore, set aside. The Court also found that the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998, and 8.11.1998, as well as the impugned letters dated 12, 12A, and 12B, were not applicable in the case of the petitioners, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland, in the matter pertaining to the sale of petitioners' lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra through its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers, and retailers.
Issues: Whether Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, and the impugned letters were ultra vires to the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, including its note, was ultra vires to the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, and 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, and was, therefore, set aside. The Court also found that the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998, and 8.11.1998, as well as the impugned letters dated 12, 12A, and 12B, were not applicable in the case of the petitioners, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland, in the matter pertaining to the sale of petitioners' lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra through its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers, and retailers. The Court held that the impugned Rule 9 and letters were ultra vires to the provisions of the Act and that they had been prevented from selling lottery tickets of lotteries organized by them within the State of Maharashtra.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and set aside Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, including its note, as well as the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998, and 8.11.1998, and the impugned letters dated 12, 12A, and 12B, in the case of the petitioners, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland, in the matter pertaining to the sale of petitioners' lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra through its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers, and retailers.
2. In Writ petition (C) No. 6016 of 2000, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and 2 others sought for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature thus, setting aside and quashing the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998,22.9.98 and 8.11.1998 h as in Annexure, HI, H2 and H3 respectively to the writ petition issued by the authorities under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and also for setting aside and quashing the Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the respondent No. 2, the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 which has been published in the Gazette notification dated 18.10.2000 as in Annexure E to the writ petition being ultra vires with the schemes of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 coupled with a prayer for a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the sale of lottery tickets of lotteries organised by the petitioners within the State of Maharashtra subject to their compliance with the provisions of section 4 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 by contending inter alia, that the petitioner-State through the sale of lottery tickets through a network of distributors, wholesalers, semi wholesalers and retailers earns substantial revenue which form a considerable part of the entire revenue of the State and is helpful as a lifeline for development of the petitioner-State and, the respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra in which the petitioner-State sells its various lotteries through its agent viz, distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers but by virtue of the existence of the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998,22.9.1998 and 8.11.1998 as in Annexure HI, H2 and H3 issued by the authorities under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and also because of promulgation and existence of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000 herein after referred to as Rules of 2000 framed by the respondent No.2. » State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the writ petitioners and its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers have been restrained rather prevented from selling of lottery tickets of lotteries organised by the writ petitioners within the State of Maharashtra without any justification. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that the impugned action on the part of the respondents concerned is against the justice, equity and good conscience and there are apparent error on the face of the record and, apart from that, the impugned action of the respondents is materially irregular.
3. Likewise, in Writ Petition (C) No. 6052 of 2000, the writ petitioners namely, the State of Nagaland and M/s MS Associates sought for the same relief in their writ petition as prayed by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) 6016 of 2000. In this writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 6052 of 2000, the writ petitioners questioned the validity of the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998 and 8.11.1998 as in Annexures 12 series to the writ petition and also the impugned Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 framed by the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, which has been published in the Gazette notification notified on 18.10.2000 as in Annexure 9 to the writ petition being ultra vires the scheme of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, herein after referred to as Act of 1998 by contending the same and similar facts and statements made by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 6016 of 2000.
4. The above 2 (two) cases are contested by the respondents particularly, the respo
