The interpretation of statutory provisions must consider the context and related provisions, and the application of legal provisions should be justified based on the specific circumstances of the case.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Rule D.B.

2. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice.

3. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner, a Labourer by profession, purchased a ticket for Rs.100/- of the Punjab State Baisakhi Bumper, 2013 bearing No. B-228855 in the name of his daughter Isha Saini from M/s. Bhanot Enterprises, SC Market, Ludhiana through its agent Shri Surjeet Singh. The petitioner received a telephonic call from the agent that the ticket he had purchased has won a prize of Rs.5 lacs in the draw and the petitioner approached the respondent-department for releasing the amount of prize money on surrender of the ticket. However, though the respondent is stated to have accepted the claim of the petitioner to be genuine, but the prize money was not released in favour of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner in order to support his claim filed an affidavit affirmed on 14.5.2013 along with representation to respondent No. 3 to the effect that the ticket was torn by the children, but he had collected all the pieces of the ticket and got it laminated and surrendered the same. He requested for the ticket to be verified. However, vide order dated 6.6.2013, respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the ticket is in a torn condition and the claim cannot be honoured in view of clause 15(1) of the Lottery Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).

6. It is the say of the petitioner that such a provision would be arbitrary and illegal moreso when Rule 15(5) of the said Rules provides that in case of a doubt, the Director may get the ticket verified from the Printing Press or the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus, even if the ticket is torn, the authenticity of the ticket can be verified. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks reading down of clause 15(1) with a plea that the import of the clause is to avoid forged, mutilated or tampered with tickets resulting in payment, but that cannot be equated with a torn ticket where all pieces are available and forgery and tampering can be eliminated.

7. The respondents are disputing the liability. It has been averred that the said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulations) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In terms of Section 4(b) of that Act, the State Government is required to print the lottery tickets bearing the imprint and logo of the State in such a manner that the authenticity of the lottery ticket is ensured. It is in order to ensure this authenticity that Rule 15 of the said Rules has been framed. The provision of Rule 15(1) is stated to have been incorporated to avoid the mischief by miscreants who may join together two or more different tickets in order to form the complete winning number. The rejection of the claim is thus, stated to be justified and in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the said Rules. Not only that, at the back of the ticket is stated to be printed conditions where at Sr. No. 7, it has been mentioned that a torn out ticket is liable to be rejected.

8. We have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The Rules were notified on 9.11.1988. Rule 15 reads as under :

“15. Forged or torn out tickets:- (1) A ticket which is forged, torn out, mutilated or tampered with, shall not be entertained.

(2) All prize winning ticket holder shall be paid in Indian Currency.

(3) One ticket will enable the holder thereof to claim one prize only, whichever is higher.

(4) The claim for prizes above rupees five thousand, shall be paid by the Director.

(5) In case of any doubt, the Director may get the tickets verified from the printing press or by a forensic science laboratory or any other authority.”

9. The aforesaid Rules have been framed in pursuance to the power conferred under Section 12 of the said Act. The object of Rule 15 is quite apparent i.e. to ensure that payment goes