MURALEEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by a lottery agent at Kannur seeking to quash Ext. P2 demand notice dated 18.3.2005 issued by the District Lottery Officer, whereby a demand was raised against the petitioner to return the excess commission paid and also Ext. P6 order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Director of State Lotteries affirming Ext. P2 demand notice. Brief material facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows;

(2.) Petitioner is a registered agent for sale of lottery tickets in the State. The rate of commission payable to agents varies according to the volume of tickets purchased by them for each draw. Various slabs under which commission payable is printed on the reverse side of each lottery ticket like Ext. P1. Till the culmination of sales/distribution from the respondents' office, registered agents can purchase tickets from any district centres of the 2nd respondent under a code number allotted by the respondents to the agent. As there are weekly and monthly draws, the commission is calculated on the culmination of each draw. But the usual practice was that, agent's turnover of the entire sales of each draw is taken together as one sale under the 2nd respondent i.e., the Director of Lotteries, Thiruvananthapuram, for determining the slab under which an agent falls, and commission was paid accordingly.

(3.) Matters being so, respondents as per Ext. P2 demanded refund of excess commission of 0.5% already paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the demand is made wrongly interpreting Rule 13(1) of the Kerala State Lotteries and Online Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 by holding that, the different district purchases made from different districts centres of the 2nd respondent are to be treated as different sale. The case put forth by the petitioner is that, Rule 13(1) does not deal with calculation of commission nor does it refer to the sale at different sub offices of the 2nd respondent and the said rule is wrongly interpreted. Ext. P2 in fact was challenged in an earlier Writ Petition and the petitioner was relegated for hearing by the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent as per Ext. P6 affirmed Ext. P2 demand raised. The case of the petitioner is that, none of the aspects put forth by the petitioner was taken into account by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered by this court.