SUNIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred for direction upon the respondent not prohibit and restrict the petitioner to carry on business of selling and marketing of online lottery organized by the other States.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement with Pooja Lotto Private Ltd. (Annexure-1) for selling, marketing and to establish technical facilities for the Play Zone Computer Online Network Lottery representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, for the alleged offence, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner being Jamtara P.S. Case No. 178 of 2006 under the provisions of Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 11 of the Bengal Gambling Act as well.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been released on bail by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara vide order dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure-4) and on furnishing security, seized articles were also released vide order dated 8.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances this Court vide judgment dated 16.1.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6063 of 2002 in the case of Manish Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another observed that there is no law banning the activity of lottery in the State of Jharkhand. The respondent-State has relied on the provision of Bihar Ban on Lotteries Act in the said case, which was declared ultra vires by the Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court reported in 1994(1) BLJR 702 , 1994(1) PLJR 554] and in that view of the matter, a writ of Mandamus was issued directing the concerned respondents not to interfere with the sale of lottery tickets by the said petitioner organized by the other States. It appears that by the said order, it was made clear that it will not affect the criminal trials, which was initiated against the said petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has a Fundamental Right to carry on business or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that activity of lottery being carried out by the petitioner is not prohibited by any Central Government Act either. In the circumstances, he submits that impugned action of the respondent imposing restriction to carry on trade, business or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is illegal and arbitrary, without there being any law so as to impose reasonable restriction.