A State Government is entitled to prevent the sale of tickets of lotteries conducted by private persons, but authorised by other states, and such an order does not make any discrimination if it clearly permits lotteries organised by the Government of India, the State Government, and other State Governments, and prohibits any other lottery.

The challenge in this writ petitioner is against G.O. Ms. No. 1101 Finance (Raffles) Department, dated 6-10-1989. By the said G.O., the State Government directed that the sale of lottery tickets of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the lotteries organised by Government of India and other State Government shall alone be permitted within the State Tamil Nadu and the lotteries of any kind are not authorised to be sold within the State of Tamil Nadu. The G.O. made it clear that any contravention of the order will be dealt with under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner claims to have been authorised by the State of Andhra Pradesh to conduct a private lottery. He has produced the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 4th April 1988 which permitted him to conduct lottery for a period of one year. He has also produced a later order dated 7-3-1989 which extended the period of six months. In the later order, it is specifically mentioned that it is the last extension. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he has obtained subsequent extension from the State of Andhra Pradesh but, in evidence of which he has not produced any document. He has stated in paragraphs 2 of his affidavit that the authorisation granted by the State of Andhra pradesh is valid and the same is in force. There is no express reference to any subsequent authorisation and the affidavit does not contain any details of such alleged subsequent extension.

3. Learned counsel fro the petitioner contends that under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code, a State lottery and a lottery authorised by the State Government are permissible and it is only the other lotteries which shall be punished with imprisonment prescribed in the section. Learned counsel contends that by the impugned G.O., the effect of a Central Enactment viz. Indian Penal Code is sought to be diluted by an executive order of the Government. According to learned counsel, when a parliamentary statute permits a particular kind of lottery being conducted, it is not open to the State Government by passing an executive order and prevent the same by making it an offence. I do not agree with this contention. The language of Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code is very clear. It excludes only a State lottery and a lottery authorised by the State Government. In the latter portion, the words "State Government" should necessarily mean the State within which the lottery is conducted. In this case, it is the State Government of Tamil Nadu, Unless the lottery is authorised by the State of Tamil Nadu, it will not be exempted under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal code, Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code does not prescribe the procedure by which the State Government should authorise to run a lottery. Hence, it is open to the State Government to pass executive orders for regulating the conduct of lotteries or to prevent the conducting of lotteries within the state.

4. The second contention put forward by learned counsel is that in H. Anraj v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR(SC) 781, 1984 (1) Scale 93, 1984 (2) SCC 292, 1984 (2) SCR 440, 1984 UJ 909 the Supreme Court has considered the question with reference to State lotteries and held that a State Government is not entitled to prevent the sale of tickets for lotteries held by the other State Government is not entitled to prevent the sale of tickets for lotteries held by the other State Government is not entitled to prevent the sale of tickets for lotteries held by the other State Governments. While discussing the question, the Supreme Court observed as follows.

To continue the expose of facts in response to the request of the several State Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India, addressed a communication dated July 1, 1968 to the chief secretaries to the Government was opposed to the idea of lotteries being conducted by Governments, they had decided to authorise the State Governments to conduct lotterie