Cyriac Jopseh, J.

1. As common issues arise in these Writ Appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.

2. Writ Appeal No.2044 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C). No.35368 of 2003, Writ Appeal No.2079 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C). No.35253 of 2003, Writ Appeal No.2083 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C). No.37260 of 2003 and Writ Appeal No.44 of 2004 arises from W.P.(C). No.35606 of 2003. W.P.(C). No.35368 of 2003 and W.P.(C). No.35606 of 2003 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with connected cases through a common judgment dated 17-11-2003. W.P.(C). No.35253 of 2003 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the light of and in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C). No.35368 of 2003 and connected cases. W.P.(C) No.37260 of 2003 also was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 5-12-2003 following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35368 of 2003 and connected cases.

3. Petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No.35368 of 2003 are marketing agents of computerized network of On-line Lotteries of the States of Sikkim and Karnataka. Petitioner No.2 is the sub-distributor of Arunachal Pradesh On-line Lotteries. They claim to have executed valid agreements with the above-mentioned States for the marketing of On-line Lotteries throughout India. They filed the Writ Petition challenging sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and a public notice dated 8-11-2003 issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala. According to Rule 24(3), no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 are issued by the Secretary to Government. Taxes Department and Enforcement Agency may seize such lottery tickets marketed before passing any order under sub-rule (2). In the impugned public notice, the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala cautioned the general public that there was distinct possibility of cheating/fraud involved in the lotteries run by other States including On-line Lotteries. The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge against sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules and upheld its validity. The challenge against the impugned notice also was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also directed that hereafter the sale of tickets of lotteries other than Kerala Lotteries will be only after obtaining approval from the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and that Enforcement Agencies are free to enforce the rules and to close the business places run without approval. The learned Single Judge further directed the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, to consider and decide the applications submitted under Rule 24(1) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the three petitioners in the writ petition have filed W.A.No.2044 of 2003.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35606 of 2003 claims to be the sole distributor of Mizoram State Lotteries in the State of Kerala. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against Rule 24(3) of the Rules and the public notice dated 8-11-2003 issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala cautioning the general public that there was a distinct possibility of cheating/fraud involved in the lotteries run by other States including On-line Lotteries. The Writ Petition was disposed of along with W.P.(C) No.35368 of 2003 and other connected cases through a common judgment dated 17-11-2003. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of Rule 24(3) of the Rules and the impugned public notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.A.No.44 of 2004.

5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35253 of 2003 claims to be the sole stockist in Kerala State for the marketing of certain lotteries organized and conducted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh through the sole distributor of Arunachal Pradesh State Lotteries, M