SHIVAM ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions mentioned above are similar in nature and involve similar point for a decision. All the petitioners are private parties and have challenged the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Notifications issued by various states prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets in those states. Notice of motion was issued on the respective dates of moving the petitions.

(2.) In Civil Rule No. 6654/98 petitioner has challenged the Notifications dated 7.10.97 and 19.3.98 issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi; Notification dated 9.10.98 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, Notification dated 30.12.97 issued by the State of Kamataka; Notification dated 1.12.97 issued by the State of Assam; Notification dated 3.1.98 issued by the State of Gujrat and Notification dated 26.6.98 issued by the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Regarding locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition, in para 1 of the Writ petitioner it is stated on oath that the petitioner is a proprietorial firm of Shri .Anurag Bansal presently doing his business at Imphal (Manipur) and prayed for striking down the above mentioned impugned Notification issued by the respective respondents states. But the affidavit has been sworn by one Shri Shyamlal Garg and has sworn the affidavit as the proprietor of the petitioner firm and the contents made in the petition(excluding paragraphs 6 and 16) are sworn ;as derived from his knowledge including para 1 of the petition. Apparently, petitioner is not engaged in lottery business and there is no statement on record that the petitioner firm is engaged in lottery business as Agent, Sub Agent of a particular State within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court merely on the ground' that he is a resident of Imphal town and has been doing business at Imphal.

(3.) I hold that the petitioner Ganesh Enterprises has no locus standi to invoke this court's writ jurisdiction when it has no lottery business as agent, sub agent etc. under the States within the jurisdiction of this court, more so), when the lottery business is a state run business and only the aggrieved state can invoke the writ jurisdiction in such cases. However, an interim order was passed on 23.12.98 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to market and sell state organised lotteries;.