H. GOUTHAMCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the respondent in G. O. Ms. 1800 Finance (Raffle) dated 23 -12 -1971. Prior to the impugned order the respondent passed G. O. Ms. 1589 Finance (Raffle) dated 8 -11 -1971, prohibiting the sale within the State of Tamil Nadu of all Government raffle tickets of States other than those of the Government of Tamil Nadu notwithstanding the reciprocal arrangements entered into between the Government of Tamil Nadu with the other States. The impugned order prohibited, on and from 1 -1 -1972 the sale within the State of Tamil Nadu of all Raffle tickets of the other States. The questions raised in the writ petition are whether the respondent. Tamil Nadu Government has power or authority to ban the sale in the Tamil Nadu of tickets of State lotteries organised and conducted by the other States in the Union of India and whether the ban order is ultra vires.

(2.) THE petitioner is carrying on business, in Madras, in the purchase and sale of raffle tickets of the various States in the Union of India, such as, Tamil Nadu, Mysore Kerala, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, United Provinces except the State of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. He is the agent for the sale of raffle tickets of the States of Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. He is also the authorised sub -agent for the sale of raffle tickets of the State of Mysore. The petitioner's case is that those raffles are organised and conducted by the various States in the Union of India as a regular commercial activity with a profit motive in order to mobilise savings, to finance their various development programmes and projects, that the profits earned are meant to be utilised for welfare activities, that each State has a Director and regular staff to look after the said activity, that the State appoints sole selling agents and sub -agents on regular commercial basis, that the State of Tamil Nadu has entered into reciprocal arrangements with other States in the Union of India under the terms of which consent is given for the sale of their tickets in the State of Tamil Nadu and vice versa and that the respondent without terminating the reciprocal arrangements passed the order dated 8 -11 -1971 prohibiting the sale within the State of Tamil Nadu of raffle tickets other than those of Tamil Nadu with immediate effect, that the police in pursuance of the aforesaid order seized the raffle tickets of various other States from the petitioner and persons like him and the respondent also released a press note stating that the Government would enforce strictly the order dated 8 -11 -1971, prohibiting the sale of raffle tickets of other States. The petitioner thereupon filed W. P. 3457 of 1971, seeking for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government dated 8 -11 -1971. referred to above. Along with the said writ petition the petitioner also filed W. M. P. 5357 of 1971 for suspending the operation of the said order. The writ petition was admitted and interim suspension of the order of the Government was issued. At the time of the final hearing of the stay petition a later order of the Government in G. O. Ms. 1657 dated 28 -11 -1971 was produced before this Court to the effect that the ban order issued on 8 -11 -1971, shall not be in operation until further orders so far as the States with whom reciprocal arrangements have been entered into by the State of Tamil Nadu. By reason of the said order of the Government dated 28 -11 -1971, the petitioner was able to sell the tickets of other States with whom the State of Tamil Nadu had entered into reciprocal arrangements. But after terminating the reciprocal agreements with the other States the Government of Tamil Nadu issued the order dated 23 -12 -1971, prohibiting the sale of Other States raffle tickets in Tamil Nadu with effect from 1 -1 -1972. The petitioner thereupon filed W.M.P. No. 6083 of 1971 in W.P. 3457 of 1971 for the suspension of the operation of the order of the Government dated 23 -12 -1971. This Court passed an interim order dated 30 -12 -1971, suspending the operation of the Government order dated 23 -12 -1971, which was confirmed at the final hearing. The petitioner has also filed W. P. No. 54 of 1972 to quash the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. 1800 dated 23 -12 -1971, and the above petition in the first Instance came up before Ramaprasada Rao, J. who considered that the same should be heard by a Division Bench in view of the importance of the question raised. The writ petition is now before us. It may be mentioned at the outset that W. P. No. 3457 of 1971 was dismissed as having become infructuous, by reason of the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) THE respondent filed a counter -affidavit. While admitting existence of reciprocal arrangements between the Tamil Nadu Government and the various States as mentioned in the petitioner's affidavit, the contentions put forward are as follows: (1) The various States carrying on raffles have not by themselves come to this Court challenging the impugned Government order and consequently their agent, the petitioner, cannot maintain the petition. Further he has no legally protected right entitling him to carry on the business of selling lottery tickets of other States in the State of Tamil Nadu. (2) Lotteries are per se gambling and it is open to the State Government to restrict or ban the sale of lottery tickets of other States within the State of Tamil Nadu and that the petitioner cannot claim a vested right to carry on the sale of their lottery tickets in the State of Tamil Nadu; (3) The contention of the petitioner based upon Article 258(1) of the Constitution is not correct and by reason of the entrustment order the Government of Tamil Nadu has ample powers to run raffles efficiently and to the maximum advantage and when their sales are affected it is open to them to safeguard their interest by banning the sale of lottery tickets of other States in this State; (4) The petitioner cannot complain that his right to trade or carry on his business is in any way curtailed nor is his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution infringed.