Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Sarbajanin Sri Sri Lakshmi Mandir Samittee and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5863 of 2025
Decided On : 15-10-2025
For the Appellant : S. Hoque
For the Respondent: B. Gogoi
The authority must substantiate its decisions with valid grounds and cannot rely on non-existent orders when denying requests.
Headnote:(A) Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 - Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 - The order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam was challenged, prohibiting the conduct of a lottery during religious events. The court noted that the secretary’s decision was based on a non-existent ground, namely, a restraining order from a PIL. The Division Bench had previously ruled that the Secretary overlooked the leave granted to the petitioners in another matter. (Paras 4, 6, 18, 19)
(B) Judicial Review - The authority must apply its mind when deciding issues and cannot issue orders based on incorrect premises or non-existent grounds. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought permission to hold an annual lottery associated with religious events, which was denied by the Secretary, invoking a restraining order related to a different matter that did not consider the leave granted to the petitioners to seek permission.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed it appropriate to set aside the Secretary’s order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for careful examination of all aspects.
Issues: Whether the Finance Secretary's refusal of the lottery request was justified, particularly in light of the previous judgment allowing the petitioners to seek permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Secretary's reasons for denial flawed, primarily based on a misinterpretation of existing legal principles related to lotteries and regulatory authority.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; order dated 13.11.2024 set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for rejection of lottery request (Para 2) |
| 2. division bench's intervention and reasoning (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. disposal of writ petition and fresh order direction (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. S Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appears on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 declining the petitioner's request to be permitted to hold its annually organized lottery during the occasions of Raas Mahotsav, Lakshmi Puja etc., and further seeking directions that the respondent No.3 to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for conducting annual lottery to be held at Sri Sri Lakshmi Mandir Samittee, Nityananda, Bajali.
3. This Court had duly taken note of the fact that the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, had already been interfered with by the learned Division Bench vide the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 in WP(C)No.6090/2024, WP(C)No.6401/2024 and WP(C)No.6402/2024.
4. This Court further takes note of that the learned Division Bench while dealing with the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department had also opined in clear and unambiguous terms that the order dated 13.11.2024 suffers from malice in law, taking into account that the same had been decided on a non-existent ground i.e. restraining order passed in the PIL No.29/2024 by completely disregarding /overlooking the leave granted by the Division Bench in another petition. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that as the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department has already been interfered with, appropriate directions can be passed on the basis of the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 referred to hereinabove.
5. This Court for the purpose of the instant writ petition finds it pertinent to quote paragraph Nos. 13 to 19 of the said Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 passed in WP(C)No.6090/2024 along with two other writ petitions which would enable this Court to pass appropriate directions also in the present writ petition. The said paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:
“13. Five grounds weighed with the concerned authority in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. First was that the State Government did not have any authority under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 to allow any applicant to conduct gift coupon draw/lottery by their own as prayed for.
14. This, in our estimation, is a specious plea for not applying mind before deciding an issue. The Act of 1998 and the Rules of 2010 are relatable to State organized lotteries which are covered by List I, Entry 40 of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Betting and gambling is but a State subject by virtue of Entry 34, List II of Schedule VII.
15. The second ground too is not sustainable, namely, that the State of Assam is a lottery free zone upon withdrawal of the Assam State Lottery Rules, 1994. This also would have no application to the facts presented by the writ petitioners.
16. The main reason why the prayer of the writ petitioners was disallowed was that an interim order had been passed by the Division Bench in PIL No.29/2024 restraining any Government authorities from giving permission to any private party to conduct online and off-line lottery and any such permission to the writ petitioners would have been in teeth of the restraining order passed by the Division Bench.
17. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has rightly commented that the Finance Secretary perhaps did not address himself to the fact that in the writ petition preferred by the petitioners (Howly Raas Mahotsav Udjapan Samity), leave was granted to them to approach the State authorities and the Division Bench
