LAWS(KER)-2007-4-239

T JOHN ROSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On April 11, 2007
T JOHN ROSE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian Union is federal, and in our constituted set up, the Central Government is amphibian, it can move either in the federal or unitary plane. Constitution makers were fully aware that the economic unity was absolutely necessary for the stability and progress of federal polity which is necessary for the proper governance of the country. Respective States may be ruled by political parties, have different ideologies and theories and may have local and regional pulls and pressure, both economical and political, but may not be at the cost of federal unity. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, a part of Indian Union, is a State situated in the north-eastern part of the country. Mutual respect between the States is the bedrock on which the unity of the country rests. Constitutional courts set up in the country cannot ignore the above principles, and they treat the State of Kerala and the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the same footing and apply the law.

(2.) We may at the outset express out anguish in the manner in which the taxing authorities functioning under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 have ignored the various documents produced for and on behalf of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Learned single judge described a letter sent by the Department of State Lotteries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh as sham document without any legal or factual basis. The affidavit filed by the secretary (State Lotteries) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, should not have been ignored in the absence of any contra evidence.

(3.) Writ petition was preferred seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 accept the advance tax from the petitioner for the period from 15-1-2007 onwards in respect of the lotteries organized, conducted and promoted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh and also for a direction to 4th respondent to pass orders on Ext.P6 regarding registration of the petitioner as promoter for selling the lottery tickets organized by the State of Arunachal Pradesh and also for other consequential reliefs. While the writ petition was pending, application for registration of the petitioner as promoter was rejected by the 4th respondent in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a "promoter' falling within the definition of section 2(1) of the Kerala ax on paper Lotteries Act, 2005, an order which has been challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge felt that Ext.P1 is a sham document which only speaks of appointment of the petitioner by the agent's agent of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and hence petitioner does not satisfy the requirement of section 2(1) of the Act for claiming registration. Learned single Judge took the view that the denial of registration to a strange like the petitioner who is not eligible to get registration in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Act cannot be described as an act of hostility against the sale of tickets of lotteries organized by the Arunachal Pradesh Government in the State of Kerala. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge the writ petitioner preferred WA.631 of 2007 and the Director of Lotteries, Arunachal Pradesh state Lotteries preferred WA. 638 of 2007.