LAWS(SC)-2019-11-79

STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. POOJA FORTUNE PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided On November 15, 2019
STATE OF MIZORAM Appellant
V/S
Pooja Fortune Private Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of Mizoram has filed these appeals against the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Division Bench whereby it modified the said order passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the State to keep in abeyance all paper lottery draws pursuant to expression of interest dated 04.06.2019 pending final outcome of the writ petition.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent no.1-writ petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Invitation for Expression of Interest dated 04.06.2019, issued by the Director, Institutional Finance & State Lottery for selection and appointment of selling agents for sale of Mizoram State Lotteries, both paper and online, and thereafter to reissue fresh tender by following Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 and various instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The main contention of the respondent no.1-writ petitioner is that the State of Mizoram had issued an expression of interest in total violation of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 as well as the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010, thereby seeking to flout Rule 4(1) of the Mizoram Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2019. The main ground raised was that the Government of Mizoram does not have a draw machine or any other mechanical method based on random technology paper lottery draws. Another ground raised before the Single Judge was that the State has no arrangement with any high security press for printing of tickets. It is contended that the State intended to conduct lotteries in violation of the provisions of law and the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 16.07.2010. Another contention raised is that the State of Mizoram has not laid down proper eligibility criteria with a view to help some traders. It would also not be out of place to mention that the petitioner took part in the bid process, though under protest.