The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for Raffle ticket purchasers to produce the prize-winning ticket in good condition as proof, including the verification of the genuineness of the ticket and the rejection of claims due to missing vital portions containing security marks.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 56 Finance (Raffle) Department dated 29-1-1992 and to quash the same in so far as it is against the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the prize winning ticket No.G 261164 Thirumagal Bumper Draw held on 3-8-1990 and also a further amount of 1,50,000/- for the counterfoil bearing No. G 261164 Thirumagal Bumper Draw held on 3-8-1990 forthwith.

2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents counter affidavits have been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.

5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The petitioner herein is a poor Agriculturist owing a small extent of land near Kannankurichi. He purchased a Raffle ticket bearing No. G.261164 from the Government Authorised Lottery Ticket Agent M/s. Sapathagiri Agency, Kannankurichi during the month of July 1990. The draw was held by the 1st respondent on 3-8-1990 and the result was published in dailies on 4-8-1990. The ticket was sold to him by the agent alongwith the counterfoil. The said agent used to give the counterfoil also alongwith the Raffle ticket in order to encourage the customers. The sale of tickets through authorised agents, conduct of draw and the distribution of prize money to the winning tickets are prescribed by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Raffles Rules 1976 and as per Rule 20 of the Rules, the Agent is entitled to a bonus equivalent to 10% of the prize if anybody won by the ticket purchased by him. The result of the Thirumagal Bumper draw was published in dailies on 4-8-1990. Without properly going through the result published in the dailies, he thought that he did not get any prize for his ticket and he threw the ticket in his house. Unfortunately his brother's child who was playing in his house torn the ticket into pieces. Thereafter he came to know that the ticket sold at Kannankurichi secured the first prize. Since he purchased the raffle from Kannankuruchi he once again verified the results and to his surprise the ticket which was purchased by him got the first prize money of Rs. 25,00,000/- and then he collected the torn ticket pieces pasted them and handed over to the 3rd respondent on 5-8-1990 for collection as per the procedure laid down in the rules. The 3rd respondent forwarded the ticket to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent acknowledged the receipt of the same on 10-8-90. The petitioner also sent a representation to the 2nd respondent explaining the circumstances under which the ticket was torn and requested to accept the ticket and make payment. It is his case that though the ticket was torn into four pieces, the genuineness of the ticket could be easily verified as the parts containing the number and