BHAILALBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL Vs. DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition challenges the result of the bumper draw of Gurjar Laxmi a Gujarat Sate Lottery held at the Tagore Hall Ahmedabad on 1/01/1982 on diverse grounds. The draw was held in the presence of a panel comprising the Chairman s Retired Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice C. V. Rane) and two members namely Professor S. R. Bhatt and Mr. Myanger the Collector of Ahmedabad. By a Government Resolution dated 30/07/1981 rules known 8 The Gujarat State Lottery Rules 1981 (4the Rules for short) were formulated. Rule 25 of the Rules lays down the procedure for draws foX each series. It Inter alia provides that there will be six drums located in a conspicuous place at one end of the hall where the draw is conducted; that the drums will bear certain identification labels; that each one of the six drums will contain ten discs bearing digits 0 to 9; that each disc will be encased in a plastic pouch so that its number is not seen; and that after the Chairman rings the bell all the six drums will be operated/ rotated simultaneously for about 10-15 seconds so that the plastic pouches containing the discs get well-shuffled. It may at this stage be realised that the purpose of rotating the drums for 10-15 second is ensure that the plastic pouches containing the discs get well-shuffled. ThE drums are to be halted after the Chairman rings the bell again and thereafter one pouch from each drum must be picked up and taken to the Chairman who will announce the digit on the disc contained in each pouch. The numbers of the six digits thus drawn have to be arranged on the notice board from left to right in the same sequence in which the drums are arranged. This is in brief the procedure to be followed at the time of each draw.

(2.) On the basis of this Rule Mr. Pujara for the petitioner urged that even though the rule does not provide for the insertion of marbles in the drums admittedly marbles were placed along with the pouches in the drums in violation of the said rule. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Biswas the Director of State Lotteries it has been pointed out that with a view to ensuring proper shuffling of the digits glass marbles numbering twenty were added in each drum with the consent of the Chairman and the two members of the panel as was the practice followed in Bombay at the time of the Maharashtra State Lottery draws. He states that he was informed by the Director of Lotteries Bombay and his officers and pickers that this practice of inserting marbles along with the pouches is in vogue in the State of Maharashtra since long. Now the rule does not prohibit the insertion of marbles. The purpose of rotating the drums for 10 to 15 seconds is to achieve the objective of the rule namely proper shuffling of the pouches containing the discs. If this objective is better achieved by the insertion of marbles which help the process of shuffling it can never be contended that the petitioners chances of winning the prizes were adversely affected because of the intervention of marbles. Lottery is essentially a game of chance and those who play it must take the loss in a sportsman-like manner unless it is who that the result was manipulated. There is therefore no merit so far as the first contention is concerned.

(3.) It was next argued by Mr. Pujara that by the insertion of glass marbles the procedure for the draw of prize winning tickets was altered in violation of Rule 31. That rule provides that the terms regarding prize amounts and procedure for draw of prize winning tickets shall not be altered in respect of any draw after the commencement of sale of tickets for that draw. In the instant case the sale of tickets commenced with effect from 18/10/1981. The draw was held on 1/01/1982 It was therefore contended that the procedure for draw of prize winning tickets was altered by the insertion of marbles in the drums in violation of Rule 31. There is no merit in this contention firstly because Rule 25 does not prohibit the insertion of marbles and secondly because the insertion of marbles does not bring about any substantial change in procedure for draw to nullify the result. As pointed out earlier the objective of Rule 25 is to ensure that plastic pouches containing the discs get well should before they are picked up from the drums. In order 10 achieve this objective if glass marbles are inserted in the drums no exception can be taken since the procedure for the draw of prize winning tickets remains the same namely to pick up one plastic pouch containing a disc from each drum after the drums are sufficiently rotated. There was therefore no such change in the procedure which could have affected the result of the draw and therefore the second contention based on the alleged infraction of Rule 31 does not appeal to me.