Back
2022 Supreme(Sikk) 2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Biswanath Somadder, CJ., Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Jojo Jose - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP (PIL) No. 01/2021
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Mr. Sangay Bhutia, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Asst. Solicitor General of India, for the Respondent Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 12; Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Yadev Sharma, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent No.2; Mr. J.K. Chandak, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3; Ms. Ranjeeta Kumari, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 4; Ms. Sunita Chettri, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 5; Mr. Hissey Gyaltsen, Asst. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent No. 7; Mr. Ugang Lepcha, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 8; None, for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 9
The court established that a Public Interest Litigation lacks merit when the petitioner cannot demonstrate genuine concerns relevant to the matter under judicial scrutiny.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Examination of loss of revenue - The legal scrutiny was focused on whether the State of Sikkim suffered any revenue loss from lottery operations conducted by a private entity from July 2016 to July 2021. Court finds, based on affidavit by the Director of Sikkim State Lotteries, that no loss was incurred. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Maintainability - The petitioner was deemed a 'meddlesome busybody' without bona fide reasons for filing the PIL as the concerns raised did not pertain to the relevant period of agreement. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner instituted a Public Interest Litigation questioning the legality of lottery operations by a private respondent and alleging loss of revenue for the State. The period relevant to the litigation was clarified to be between July 2016 and July 2021.
Findings of Court:
The Court confirmed the absence of revenue loss during the specified lottery operation period.
Issues: The Court addressed whether there was a legitimate loss to the state from lottery operations and the question of the petitioner’s standing.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that without demonstrable loss or a bona fide purpose for the PIL, intervention was unjustified.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issue of revenue loss raised (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. audit findings highlight operational lapses (Para 4) |
| 3. judicial scrutiny period defined; no revenue loss confirmed (Para 5) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Somadder, CJ. - In our order dated 24th March, 2022, we had raised a specific issue as to whether the State of Sikkim suffered any loss of revenue in the backdrop of an invoice/bill dated 26th June, 2017, which was sought to be highlighted by the learned advocate representing the writ petitioner. We also kept the point of maintainability of the writ petition open in our said order dated 24th March, 2022.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Advocate General draws our attention to a report in the form of an affidavit affirmed on 08th April, 2022, by the Director, Directorate of Sikkim State Lotteries, Finance Department, Government of Sikkim, who has been duly authorised by the respondent no. 2 to file the same.
3 A bare perusal of the said report in the form of an affidavit reveals inter alia that there is no loss to the State exchequer - or, in other words - the State of Sikkim did not suffer any loss of revenue while lottery was being conducted, which was this Court's only concern while entertaining this Public Interest Litigation.
4. At this juncture, the learned advocate representing the writ petitioner draws our attention to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 12, i.e., the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and submits that the enclosed audit findings therein will reveal that during 2010-2016, the State of Sikkim, while organising around 44,834 draws of various lottery schemes had committed many lapses in the lottery operations of the State relating to monitoring, maintenance of records, deposit of revenues, failure to authenticate and ascertain prize payments by Marketing Agents (MAs), the draw process, failure to obtain details of prize winning tickets and unsold tickets from the MAs and absence of checks and controls on operation of lottery schemes. The learned advocate also referred to various portions of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ending March, 2016, in respect of performance audit on Sikkim State lotteries.
5. While we have carefully perused the report containing the results of performance audit on Sikkim State lotteries, prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, we find that the period reflected therein, i.e., between 2010 till March, 2016, is not the period under judicial scrutiny so far as this Public Interest Litigation is concerned. The period with which we are concerned centres around the last agreement period between July, 2016 and July, 2021, which was entered into by the State of Sikkim and the private respondent no.3, for conducting lottery. During this period, as stated earlier, the State of Sikkim did not suffer any loss of revenue while lottery was being conducted by the private respondent no.3. As such, we have no hesitation in observing that Jojo Jose - who has instituted this Public Interest Litigation before this Court and who claims to be a resident of Siddhartha Enclave, Ashram, Ring Road, New Delhi - is none but a meddlesome busybody seeking this Court's intervention by filing the instant Public Interest Litigation for reasons which are clearly not bona fide.
6. For reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed.
7. Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 04 of 2021, stands disposed of accordingly.
