The first petitioner won the prize of Rs.1 lakh for the ticket SH 406687 of Soubhagya Lottery, in Draw No. 446 held on 14-2-2004. He sent the ticket, claiming the prize amount to the 1st respondent Director of Kerala State Lotteries, on 9-3-2004 which was received by the said Officer on 15-3-2004. The second petitioner won the prize of Rs.50,000 of the Soubhagya Lottery in Draw No. 451 held on 20-3-2004. The said ticket was sent to the 1st respondent on 27-4-2004, which was received by the said Officer, on 29-4-2004. In both the cases, the prize amounts were not disbursed in time. Hence this Writ Petition.

2. Pursuant to the interim order issued by this Court, to consider the claim of the petitioners, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P-20 and P-21 orders dated 13-09-2004, rejecting their claim. The petitioners amended the Writ Petition, challenging the validity of Ext.P-20 and P-2 1. They submit that the impugned orders have been issued, in violation of Rule 22 (13) of the Kerala Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003. It is submitted that the first petitioner's claim for prize amount has been rejected on irrational grounds. The second petitioner's application to condone the delay in presenting the ticket was also rejected without any valid grounds and also under the dictation of the State Government. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they were not residents of the State of Kerala. The same is highly arbitrary and discriminatory, it is contended.

3. The respondents have chosen, not to file any counter-affidavit in this Writ Petition. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Rule 22(1) of the above said Rules reads as follows:

"22(1). The Government shall guarantee the prize and prize amount of lotteries."

Going by Rule 22(1), the Government are bound to guarantee the payment of prize amount of lotteries. In the case of the first petitioner, he is the holder of a prize winning ticket and he has presented it in time. So, the 1st respondent has no power or authority to injects his claim. Ext.P-2 would show that on totally irrelevant grounds, prize has been declined to him. If there was transfer of ticket, involving money laundering or evasion of income tax, the 1st respondent could have informed the Income Tax Department about the same. But, in this case, the 1st respondent called for certain details from the first petitioner and entered a finding that his explanation was not satisfactory and rejected his claim for the prize amount. None of the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act or the Rules framed there under authorizes the 1st respondent to act in the manner, he has done in this case. Therefore, Ext.P-20 is quashed it is declared that the first petitioner is entitled to get the prize amount, provided the ticket presented by him is genuine. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the f first petitioner for payment of the prize amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment in the light of the declaration of law made herein above.

4. In the case of the second petitioner, there is a delay of 9 days in presenting the ticket. The delay has been explained by him, in the following words:

"I could not see the result in time, since results were not available with me. I kept the ticket separately in my drawer, with great difficulty and after verifying the result, I came to know that the above said ticket has won the price of Rs.50.000. I was not knowing the procedural details for claiming the prize money. It took some time for me to gather details for claiming the prize money."

The above quoted explanation has been rejected by the 1st respondent, on the ground that the results of the draws, conducted by the said respondent are promptly published by the Kerala Lotteries in national dailies and therefore the contention of the second petitioner that he was not aware of the results in time was not acceptable.

5. Th