S KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 11.10.2001 and direct the respondents to deposit the prize amount of rupees one lakh in respect of Winning Ticket No. C 589201 purchased and claimed by the petitioner along with interest at 24% per annum from 4.7.2001.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the above' ticket and the monthly draw of Raffles was held on 4.2.2001 by the Government of Tamil Nadu through the second respondent. THE petitioner's ticket was found to be the prize winning ticket. THE petitioner claimed the prize amount of rupees one lakh. THEre was no rival claim for the said prize. THE petitioner on ascertaining the fact of prize won by his ticket, he deposited the said ticket with the second respondent after getting an acknowledgment on 23.3.2001. THE second respondent kept the matter pending for eight months and on 11.10.2001, the impugned order was passed stating that as per Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Raffles Rules 1976, the claim amount of the priae winning ticket made by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground "torn/disfigured and tampered tickets cannot be entertained." It is the case of the petitioner that he had presented a genuine ticket, without the same being torn or disfigured or mutilated or tampered. THE same is revealed from the acknowledgment issued by the i second respondent, while collecting the prize winning ticket on 23.3.2001. Challenging the said order, the writ petition has been filed contending that as per Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Raffle Rules 1976, if the claim is made within 90 days from the date of draw after verification of the genuiness, the prize amount shall be awarded after the expiry of one month from the date of announcement of the draw results. It is also stated in the affidavit that as per Rule 36(h), the Director of Tamilnadu Raffles is the ultimate Authority to decide the issue and his decision shall be final and binding.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that when the ticket itself was presented, it was torn and inspite of that the Director-the second respondent sent proposal to the Government and recommended for payment of the amount as the ticket was found genuine. THE Government having rejected the same, the petitioner is not entitled to get the said amount.