ORDER C.P. Sen, J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation regarding what is termed as Churhat Lottery Scandal. The Petitioner is seeking cancellation of the licence which was granted under M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar) Adhiniyam, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as Lottery Act) for holding the lottery, submission of accounts of the different draws of the lottery and the prizes distributed, quashing the order of the Collector condoning holding of lotteries beyond the licence period, quashing the order of the State Government granting exemption from payment of tax, for prosecution of the Society for committing various illegalities and irregularities in conducting the lottery against the provisions of the Lottery Act and M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar) Niyam, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as Lottery Rules) and the licence conditions, enquiry by an independent agency into the affairs of the Society and taking action against the Collector for granting licence without enquiry and without seeking full compliance of the provisions. 2. The Petitioner Shri Kailash Joshi is a leader of the Opposition in M. P. Vidhan Sabha. He has been Ex-President of the State Bhartiya Janta Party and was also Chief Minister of the State for sometime. Respondent No. 3 Shri Arjun Singh was elected as the Chief Minister of the State in June 1980, having been elected from Churhat Constituency in the Vidhan Sabha in the general elections and he continued his full term and thereafter he was again elected Chief Minister and in that capacity he continued up to 12-3-1985 when he was appointed as Governor of Punjab. He resigned from Vidhan Sabha seat. In his place, his son Shri Ajay Singh, Respondent No. 7, has been elected in the Vidhan Sabha from this constituency. The Respondent No. 3 then joined the Central Cabinet and thereafter became the Vice-President of the All India Congress Party. After sometime, he again became Cabinet Minister in the Ministry of Communication and returned to the State as Chief Minister on 14-2-1988. Shri Motilal Vora, the present Central Cabinet Minister for Health was the Chief Minister of the State between 13-8-1985 to 13-2-1988. After sometime, he again became Cabinet Minister in the Ministry of Communication and returned to the State as Chief Minister on 14-2-1988. Shri Motilal Vora, the present Central Cabinet Minister for Health was the Chief Minister of the State between 13-8-1985 to 13-2-1988. It is not disputed that on the inspiration of the Respondent No. 3, Churhat Children Welfare Society (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Churhat Society) was registered under M. P. Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, with the object of promoting education, rehabilitation and health to children, implementation and publicity of family welfare programmes and running of schools, libraries, training centres, welfare centres etc. with Shri Martand Singh ex-ruler of Rewa State and ruling party Member of Parliament as the Chairman, Dr. Sajjan Singh, brother of Respondent No. 3, as Vice Chairman, Shri Ajay Singh son of Respondent No. 3 as Secretary, Shri B.P. Singh, son-in-law of the Respondent No. 3, as Treasurer and Shri S. P. Singh, another relation of the Respondent No. 3 as member of the governing body. 3. Sometime in November 1983, the Churhat Society applied to the State Government for permission to run lottery for helping handicapped and destitute children of the area which was received by the State Government on 30-1 1-1983. The Finance Secretary wrote to the Churhat Society on 16-12-1983 that the Government has agreed to permit the Churhat Society to hold the lottery for the avowed purpose of the Society and since the Collector was the authority to grant licence, Churhat Society was advised to apply to the Collector for licence. The Collector was also advised by the Finance Secretary, on the same date, that on an application being made, the licence may be issued under Section 7 of the Lottery Act, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Thereafter, Churhat Society applied to the Collector in Form-B prescribed under Section 6 of the Lottery Act for grant of licence to organise private lottery for raising funds for humaniterian purposes. On a regular basis, a licence was granted by the Collector, Sidhi, in Form-D under Section 7 of the Lottery Act to run a private lottery on the conditions that accounts to be furnished and price of tickets and prizes not to be varied. On a regular basis, a licence was granted by the Collector, Sidhi, in Form-D under Section 7 of the Lottery Act to run a private lottery on the conditions that accounts to be furnished and price of tickets and prizes not to be varied. It appears that thereafter Churhat Society entered into an agreement on 14-1-1984 with M/s. A. & A. Enterprises, Respondent No. 8, a Delhi based concern, as its agent for organising and conducting the lottery on a minimum guaranteed profit of rupees one crore to be paid to Churhat Society out of sale of tickets worth rupees fifteen crores. The organising agent was given exclusive right to run lottery under the name and style of "Children Welfare Raffle". As per the agreement, the unclaimed and undisbursed amounts of the prize money were to be retained by the organising agent subject to the discretionary right of Churhat Society. The entire responsibility of settling of the prize amount was with the organising agent. It appears that some of the holders of the lottery tickets getting 2nd prize and other prizes did not get their prizes and, therefore, they made complaints to the Central Government and the State Government. There were also newspaper reports regarding non-payment of prizes, irregularities in conducting lotteries and diversion of funds collected by selling lottery tickets. Questions were raised in the Parliament and in the Vidhan Sabha also. The Petitioner along with Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Member of Parliament, and other persons made a complaint to the Rajya Pal for a probe regarding conducting of the lottery, the irregularities committed and looting of public. However, the then Chief Minister Shri Motilal Vora. Respondent No. 2, by order dated 15-5-1987 exempted Churhat Society under Section 28 from payment of tax under Section 10 of the Lottery Act in anticipation of approval of the Cabinet. The matter was placed before the Cabinet and approved on 10-5-1988 when the Respondent No. 3 again became Chief Minister. 4. The Petitioner who is leader of the Opposition in the Vidhan Sabha has submitted that he has a duty to see that the State Government acts within the four corners of law and the public funds are spent only in public interest. He along with others raised the question regarding Churhat lottery but nothing came out on the pretext of the State Government that the matter is subjudice in High Court. He along with others raised the question regarding Churhat lottery but nothing came out on the pretext of the State Government that the matter is subjudice in High Court. Questions were also raised in the Loksabha and Rajyasabha but again nothing came out in view of the statement furnished by the State Government that Churhat Society has already received rupees 99 lacs from its organising agent for holding the lottery, some of the prize money could not be distributed since tickets were seized by Income-tax authorities and Churhat Society is running a hospital and engaged in other social activities. The State Government has taken a decision to make the provisions of the Act more stringent. The Petitioner and others also made a complaint to the Rajya Pal, bringing to his notice that there are grave illegalities and irregularities committed in holding the lottery and funds diverted and demanded an enquiry, but since the close relations of the Chief Minister were connected with the lottery, no action was taken. The licence to hold the lottery was granted by the Collector under pressure from the State Government when the Respondent No. 3 was the Chief Minister. The Collector granted licence mechanically without making any enquiry and without obtaining any details regarding compliance for holding the lottery in accordance with the Act & the Rules. Churhat Society sold its rights to hold the lottery to M/s. A & A Enterprises which was not permissible under the Lottery Rules as the licence was granted personally to the Society. Entire tickets were printed, sold, amounts collected, draws arranged and prizes disbursed by the organising agent from Delhi. Apparently, the organising agent has earned huge profits and even pocketed the undisbursed prize monies. A confusion was deliberately created by not giving the address of Churhat Society on the lottery tickets, with the result prize winners had to run from pillar to post without getting their prizes, one of them being Head Constable Mahalingam of Madras City Police, holding ticket no CE. 3192475 who got second prize of rupees five lacs in the second draw (wrongly mentioned as 7th draw). Churhat Society did not furnish any accounts as required under Rule 11, breach of which is punishable under Rule 12. 3192475 who got second prize of rupees five lacs in the second draw (wrongly mentioned as 7th draw). Churhat Society did not furnish any accounts as required under Rule 11, breach of which is punishable under Rule 12. The Collector by his letter dated 13-11-1984 pointed out to Churhat Society that it was given licence to hold only one draw but they have already held 3 draws so far and so it was directed not to hold any further draws, yet disobeying the order of the Collector the Society held 9 more draws. No returns were submitted after each draw giving details of the tickets, sold, prizes distributed, expenses incurred and profits earned. In order to camouflage the issue, Churhat Society merely submitted annual statement of accounts from 1983 to 1986 which was not in compliance with the requirements of the licence conditions and the rules. The Director of Lotteries in his report dated 29-3-1986 submitted that 9 draws were unauthorisedly held without caring for the Collector's order. No information has been furnished by the Society in spite of varies queries made and only evasive replies were given, prizes were not being paid to the prize winners and so the Society should not be exempted from payment of lottery tax. It was reported that there was no such office of the Society at Churhat or at Rewa. Eeven the officers of the Directorate did not get any information from these two places. 5. The Petitioner further submitted that Churhat Society gave information that tickets worth Rs. 14,19,20,000/- were printed, tickets worth Rs. 5,44,49,590/- were sold, prize amount of Rs. 1,90,78,992/- was distributed and after paying one crore to the Society the balance amount of 2 1/2 crores remained unaccounted for. There are reasons to believe that tickets printed were nearly to the tune of Rupees 19 crores and tickets sold were much more than worth five crores. This is corroborated by the report submitted by the Dy. Accountant General. One C.P. Mishra, Income-tax Officer, took up investigation of Churhat Society and the lottery conducted. He raised demand of additional tax to the extent of Rs. 1,70,28,300/-against Churhat Society. Strong pressures were brought on him and he was transferred and the transfer order has been challenged by Shri Mishra before the Central Administrative Tribunal after he was told by his superiors that they were helpless in the matter. He raised demand of additional tax to the extent of Rs. 1,70,28,300/-against Churhat Society. Strong pressures were brought on him and he was transferred and the transfer order has been challenged by Shri Mishra before the Central Administrative Tribunal after he was told by his superiors that they were helpless in the matter. Shri Arjun Singh, the Respondent No. 3, had given a statement in M. P. Vidhan Sabha on his election as an independent Member on 3-3-1960 regarding corruption eating into the very vitals of democracy and made full disclosure of his assets showing his bank balance of Rs. 2500/- only. Recently, he and his family members have constructed a bungalow at Kerva Dam and it is estimated by the people to be worth more than a crore of rupees. This is only one of his properties, besides several others. Many times issues were raised in this respect in Vidhan Sabha, without any proper answers. Since no accounts were submitted by the Society regarding the draws of the lottery and the Society being controlled by the close relations of Shri Arjun Singh, it is not only necessary in the interest of democracy but also with a view to maintain the dignity of the high office as Chief Minister that complete statement in respect of the assets of the family of Shri Arjun Singh be furnished before this Court. This is necessary because many news magzines and press statements of this non-disclosure and Kerva Dam bungalow have been put as co-related and the Government machinery has deliberately omitted to do its duty as required under the provisions of the Act. In spite of all this, the Collector on 10-4-1987 wrongly condoned the draws of the lottery held beyond the licence period by invoking powers under Section 23 of the Limitation Act and under the General Clauses Act. The then Chief Minister, Respondent No. 2, mechanically and hurriedly granted exemption under Section 28 from payment of lottery tax on 15-4-1987 in anticipation of the Cabinet approval. All these illegalities and irregularities were perpetuated because the Respondent No. 3 was Chief Minister when the licence was granted and the Cabinet gave its approval in order to oblige him and his relations. In between, he was All India Vice President of the ruling party and also Cabinet Minister in the Central Cabinet. 6. All these illegalities and irregularities were perpetuated because the Respondent No. 3 was Chief Minister when the licence was granted and the Cabinet gave its approval in order to oblige him and his relations. In between, he was All India Vice President of the ruling party and also Cabinet Minister in the Central Cabinet. 6. The Respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6 i. e. State of M. P., Shri Arjun Singh, the Collector Sidhi and Shri Ashok Das, the then Collector, submitted a joint return supported by the affidavit of Joint Secretary of Finance who had no occasion to deal with the case at the relevant time. According to them, the lottery run by Churhat Society was not a private lottery under Section 6 of the Lottery Act but it was under a special authorisation applied and granted by the State Government under Section 30(b) of the Act Churhat Society had intimated that it will appoint agents to conduct the lottery but while processing a little bit of confusion crept in. While the State Government consciously granted special permission for conducting this lottery but because of the confusion, Churhat Society was also directed to apply to the Collector for a licence under Section 7 of the Act. In pursuance thereof, the Collector Sidhi granted licence on 3-1-1984 though the State Government never meant it to be a private lottery. The licence was ordered to be issued in order to keep administrative control over running of the lottery. No pressure was brought on the Collector. Otherwise, the State Government would not have come in the picture at all. Churhat Society also applied for tax exemption under Section 28 of the Act on 19-8-1985 under the presumption that Section 10 of the Act was applicable as the licence was issued under Section 7 of the Act. But in view of the special authorisation under Section 30 (b) by the State Government, nothing in the Lottery Act or the Rules applied to the lottery run by Churhat Society. So under confusion that tax was leviable, the then Chief Minister granted exemption under Section 28 which has since been approved by the Cabinet. In order to get political advantage, questions were raised in the Vidhan Sabha and in Parliament regarding this lottery. So under confusion that tax was leviable, the then Chief Minister granted exemption under Section 28 which has since been approved by the Cabinet. In order to get political advantage, questions were raised in the Vidhan Sabha and in Parliament regarding this lottery. It is denied that any illegalities or irregularities were committed or there were any acts of nepotism or favouritism by the Government in favour of Shri Arjun Singh or his relations. The Petitioner should have adopted a democratic approach and once the matter was decided on the basis of votes in Vidhan Sabha, this Court is not the proper forum. The Churhat Society has been exempted from payment of income-tax by the Central Government and the Finance Department of the State Government had also exempted many lotteries run by many social and sports organisations. The State Government has also framed M. P. Lottery Rules, 1969, for conducting lotteries by the State Government. The report of the Dy. Accountant General cannot be the basis for calculation unless the first and last number in all the series of each draw are known. Churhat Society was not bound to submit any accounts in view of special authorisation granted under Section 30 (b). 7. The Respondents 4 & 7 i.e. Mahar?ja Martand Singh and Ajay Singh, the President and the Secretary of Churhat Society, in their return raised various preliminary objections including that Shri Motilal Vora and Shri Arjun Singh have been arrayed in their personal capacity while the Respondents 4 & 7 are individuals and they are not State or instrumentality of the Stete, so no writ can lie against them. The two Chief Ministers are neither necessary nor proper parties. Shri Arjun Singh at no point of time had any occasion to deal with Churhat lottery case. The petition is motivated, mala fide and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. It has been filed by and at the instance of political rivals acting for oblique considerations and with mala fide intentions. Churhat Society was excluded from the regulatory ambit of the Lottery Act and the Rules by virtue of special authorisation granted by the State Government under Section 30 (b) of the Act. Churhat Society had intimated that it would appoint agent for conducting the lottery. It bona fide acted all through believing that it has a special authorisation under Section 30(b) of the Act. Churhat Society had intimated that it would appoint agent for conducting the lottery. It bona fide acted all through believing that it has a special authorisation under Section 30(b) of the Act. However, it was advised to apply the Collector under Section 6 though that section has no application to the lottery which was conducted by Churhat Society. Similarly, the Society was advised to apply for tax exemption under Section 28 when no tax can be levied under Section 10 of the Act since the lottery was specially authorised under Section 30 (b). Churhat Society has already been exempted under Section 10(23)(c) (iv) of the Income tax Act, 1961, from payment of income-fax by the Central Government in respect of Section 80(G) of the Act for the assessment years 1986-87 and other societies have already been exempted by the State Government under Section 28 from payment of tax. In the licence it was not specified as to from which date the period of one year was to commence nor number of draws were specified. Since Churhat Society was not in the regular business of organising and running lotteries, it entrusted the work to an expertise hand in the business. The management by the organising agent was subject to supervision by Churhat Society. Churhat Society has received the guaranteed money of rupees one crore and it has been rightly granted exemption under Section 28 since it is devoting itself to humanitarian and charitable causes. 8. As against the contentions of the aforesaid Respondents, Shri Motilal Vora, Respondent No. 2, who was the Chief Minister of the State from 13-3-1985 to 13-3-1988 and who granted the tax exemption under Section 28 of the Lottery Act to Churhat Society, has taken altogether a contrary stand. According to him, the licence dated 3-1-1981 was granted under Section 7 of the Lottery Act for private lottery to be conducted by Churhat Society on an application made on 29-12-1983. Since the object of the lottery was for charitable purpose and he being satisfied regarding the nature, object, scope and purpose of the lottery, passed the order of exemption on 15-5-1987 (wrongly mentioned as 15-7-1987) in anticipation of Cabinet's approval which has subsequently been granted. Since the object of the lottery was for charitable purpose and he being satisfied regarding the nature, object, scope and purpose of the lottery, passed the order of exemption on 15-5-1987 (wrongly mentioned as 15-7-1987) in anticipation of Cabinet's approval which has subsequently been granted. Before passing the order, the matter was thoroughly examined by the Finance Department and the Law Department and there was no doubt left about the nature of the lottery i.e. it was a private lottery. The order of exemption was passed by him under Rule 7 of Rules of Business. Neither the State Government was under confusion regarding the nature of the lottery nor there was special authorisation made or issued under Section 30(b) of the Act till he passed the order of exemption under Section 28. He has done no favour to Churhat Society on the ground that the organisers are relations of Shri Arjun Singh, the present Chief Minister. 9. According to the organising agent M/s. A & A Enterprises, Respondent No. 8, it is one of the leading and reputed concern engaged in organisation of lotteries and raffles and it has acquired considerable expertise, knowledge skill and experience in the field of organisation of lotteries. So the Churhat Society entrusted the work of organising its lottery to this Respondent after showing that it has the approval of the Finance Department regarding holding of lottery and the State Government has not disapproved appointment of agent for organising the lottery. So an agreement was executed on 14-1-1984. It was to conduct the lottery at its own risk subject to complete supervision, control and check by Churhat Society after it agreed to pay the minimum guaranteed amount of rupees one crore to the Society irrespective of the fact whether there was any profit or not. The State Government has shown that the profit range was between 2.5% to 15% in running State lotteries and the private organisers with much less resources cannot earn more. Some of the prizes could not be paid because the tickets were seized by the Income-tax Department. The agreement with Churhat Society is purely a contractual business activity and it has been wrongly arrayed as a party with oblique motive and there is no cause of action against it. The Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. Some of the prizes could not be paid because the tickets were seized by the Income-tax Department. The agreement with Churhat Society is purely a contractual business activity and it has been wrongly arrayed as a party with oblique motive and there is no cause of action against it. The Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. After arguments were heard and case closed, this Respondent filed an application to bring to the judicial notice the proceedings of the State Assembly in State Vidhan Sabha on 26th July, 1985, wherein the Government made a statement that the lottery conducted by Churhat Society was not a private lottery. Printed proceedings of Vidhan Sabha was appended with the application. 10. The questions for determination are: (i) Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to file this petition and whether he should have sought relief from other statutory forums such as Vidhan Sabha, Public Accounts Committee, Lok Ayukt etc. and whether no writ lies since Churhat Society is a private body and the Respondents 2 & 3 have been made parties in their individual capacity ? (ii) Whether Churhat Society had applied and got permission for running private lottery under Section 6 of the Lottery Act or the lottery was one specially authorised consciously under Section 30 (b) of the Act ? (iii) Whether the lottery conducted by Churhat Society was in terms of Section 6 and there has been compliance to the provisions of the Act, Rules and the licence conditions ? (iv) Whether exemption under Section 28 of the Act could be granted to Churhat Society from payment of tax under Section 10 ? (v) Whether there was application of mind by the Chief Minister and then by the Cabinet in giving tax exemption ? and (vi) Whether Section 30 (b) of the Lottery Act gives unguided, uncontrolled and arbitrary power to the State Government and violates Article 14 of the Constitution and has to be struck down ? 11. Before going into the merits of the case, we have to see whether the Petitioner has any locus standi to file this petition and as to whether this Court can look into the questions raised in this petition and adjudicate on the same. 11. Before going into the merits of the case, we have to see whether the Petitioner has any locus standi to file this petition and as to whether this Court can look into the questions raised in this petition and adjudicate on the same. The Supreme Court has now much enlarged the concept of locus standi in S. P Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 wherein it has been held: Its jurisdiction can be invoked by a third party in the case of violation of the constitutional rights of another person or determinate class of persons who, by reason of poverty, helplessness, disability or social or economic disadvantage is unable to move the Court personally for relief. The Court observed further that where the public injury was suffered by a determinate class of persons from the breach of a public duty or from the violation of a constitutional provision of the law, any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for such public injury. The principle was qualified by the reservation that such Petitioner should act bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit, nor be moved by political or other oblique motivation. The doctrine of standing has thus been enlarged in this country to provide, where reasonably possible, access to justice to large section of people for whom so far it his been a matter of despair. But the Supreme Court cautioned that the individual who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for political gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the Court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold. Again the Supreme Court in State of H. P. v. Student's Parent, Medical College, Shimla AIR 1985 SC 910 has observed: Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it doss not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the legislature. The Supreme Court in Chaitanya Kumar v. State of Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 825 has held: It is true that in a public interest litigation, those professing to be public spirited citizens cannot be encouraged to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others, but, at the same time, the Court cannot close its eyes and persuade itself to uphold publicly mischievous executive actions which have been so exposed When arbitrariness and perversion are writ large and brought out clearly, the Court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its writ. 12. It cannot be disputed that the Petitioner has political overtones. The Petitioner is a leader of the Opposition in the Vidhan Sabha and belongs to the Bhartiya Janta Party while the Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Minister, the Respondent No. 2 ex-Chief Minister, the Respondent No. 4 Member of Parliament and the Respondent No. 7 is the son of Chief Minister and Member of Vidhan Sabha, all belonging to the ruling party. Therefore, these Respondents submitted that the petition is political and partisan in nature, actuaed by hostility and malice, nothing but political broadside, mosquerading as legal issues for political and propoganda purposes to bring down the duly elected Government. It is veritable Pandora's box, raising all sorts of questions and issues. On the other hand, the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner being the leader of the Opposition in Vidhan Sabha, it is his duty to highlight the corruption, nepotism, favouritism and misuse of power by persons in the Government, particularly when the misdecds affected the public revenue and misused the administrative machinery. The Respondent No. 3 was not the Chief Minister when the petition was filed and so there was no question of bringing down the Govrenment and even if on exposure he has to resign, he will be replaced by another person from the ruling party who will be the Chief Minister and not any one from the Opposition. So no political advantage would be gained by filing this petition excepting exposing the misdeeds. The petition wanted that no exemption from payment of tax be given to Churhat Society in public interest as members of Churhat Society in the garb of holding lottery, have enriched themselves. Questions were raised in the Vidhan Sabha but the Government made a statement that the matter is subjudice in the High Court. The petition wanted that no exemption from payment of tax be given to Churhat Society in public interest as members of Churhat Society in the garb of holding lottery, have enriched themselves. Questions were raised in the Vidhan Sabha but the Government made a statement that the matter is subjudice in the High Court. The motion was also lost in the Vidhan Sabha as the ruling party has steam-roller majority. Questions were also raised unsuccessfully in the Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee cannot probe into the accounts of a private society. The Lok Ayukt has also no jurisdiction to enquire against the acts and conduct of members of Parliament and Vidhan Sabha and private society. The legal issues raised in this petition cannot be adjudicated by the Legislature. The contentions of the Petitioner justifies his filing of this Public Interest writ against the Respondents. It is for the Court to decide whether it was private or public lottery, whether the Government granted special authorisation under Section 30 (b) of the Lottery Act and whether the Government was jusitified in granting exemption to the Society Under Section 28 of the Act from payment of tax under Section 10. All these legal questions possibly could neither be raised nor adjudicated in the Vidhan Sabha. Questions raised were regarding misuse of power and illegalities committed in running the lottery. So the Petitioner has the locus standi to file the petition and this Court has the jurisdiction to decide the questions raised. The Supreme Court in D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 579 has held: The rule of law constitutes the core of our Constitution and it is the essence of the rule of law that the exercise of the power by the State whether it be the Legislature or the Executive or any other authority should be within the constitutional limitations and if and practice is adopted by the Executive which is in flagrant and systematic violation of its constitutional limitations, Petitioner as a member of the public would have sufficient interest to challenge such practice by filing a writ petition and it would be the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon the validity of such practice. 13. 13. The Petitioner is not seeking relief against private persons in this writ petition Firstly, the Petitioner is challenging the action of the State Government in granting exemption to Churhat Society from payment of tax under Section 28 of the Lottery Act. Secondly, the Petitioner wants cancellation of the licence granted to the Society for running the lottery and for restraining the State Government from granting any further lottery licence to Churhat Society. Thirdly, the Petitioner also wants a thorough probe into the accounts of the draws of the lottery already held, how the prizes distributed and how profits shared with the organising agent by Churhat Society so that the entire profits could have been utilised for the avowed charitable purpose in public interest. Fourthly, the Petitioner wants directions to the State Government for prosecuting the Churhat Society for committing breaches of the Lottery Act, Rules and licence conditions. Therefore, the Respondents are not being arrayed in their individual capacities, particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were the Chief Ministers at the relevant time and granted exemption from payment of tax and issuance of the lottery licence by the Collector on the recommendation of the Finance Department of the State Government and giving of Cabinet approval for exemption of tax. It may be that Churhat Society is a private body but it is being managed and controlled by the close relations of the Chief Minister and so the Society assumes importance in respect of its various acts of malfeasance and misfeasance. The Supreme Court in Rohtas Industries v. Its Union AIR 1976 SC 425 held; The expansive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Article 226 is as wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so can affect any person-even a private individual-and be available for any (other) purpose-even one for which another remedy may exist. The amendment to Article 226 in 1963 inserting Article 226 (1A) reiterates the targets of the writ power as inclusive of any person by the expressive reference to 'the residence of such person'. The Supreme Court has spelt out wise and clear restrains on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome inhibitions except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. The Supreme Court has spelt out wise and clear restrains on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome inhibitions except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug should be judiciously administered. Speaking in critical retrospect and portentous prospect, the writ power has, by and large, been the people's sentinel on the qui vive and to cut back on or liquidate that power may cast a peril to human rights. 14. Lotteries organised by the Governmet of India or the Government of the State come under entry No. 40 of List No. 5 of the Union List of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. So Parliament alone is empowered to make laws governing such lotteries. All other lotteries come under general entry No. 34 regarding betting and gambling in List No. II of the State List. Sale or distribution of lottery ticket, not organised by any Government but by some other person or body, would fall under this entry. The State of M. P. in public interest has framed M P. State Lottery Rules, 1969, for the conduct of the State lotteries. The Rules provide that the State lotteries shall be administered by the Director of State Lotteries, tickets shall be in the denomination of Re. 1/- only, the tickets shall be printed in the Government Press or at any other press of repute, the number and value of prizes to be notified by the Government to which wide publicity to be given, the lottery tickets to be made available through authorised agents to be appointed by the Director, the agents to get commission of 15% to 20% for sale of tickets plus 5% bonus on the prize amounts of the tickets sold by him and besides prizes for the agents selling highest number of tickets. The Rules also lay down elaborate procedures for conducting the draws, no unsold ticked to get any of the first to fith prizes, the draws to be repeated till sold tickets get these prizes, no ticket-holder to get more than one prize, the time and place of draw is to be given wide publicity, the draw to be held in public and in the presence of panel of judges, after the draw is over, the various records shal be kept in the custody of the Director, first to third prizes to be given personally to the prize winners who are required to submit their claims within 30 days of the draw, failing which the prize money to be forfeited to the State. The Central Government has also laid down guide-lines for such lotteries in 1984. 14. (a) It appears that private lotteries proliferated indulging in malpractices and unfair competition to the extent that running of State Lotteries became difficult So the State Legislature enacted M. P. Lottery Adhiniyam, 1973, to regulate the private lotteries with the object and reasons that the State lotteries are being run to generate funds for development projects but because of unfair competition, the State lotteries are adversely affected, so it has become necessary to regulate the private lotteries in order to augument income to State revenue. It is, therefore, clear that the Lottery Act was enacted to control and tax the private lotteries in such a way that the same may cease to be competitiors of the State lotteries. (b) Under Section 3, save as provided under this Act, all lotteries except those organised by the Central Government and the State Government of M. P are unlawful. Under Section 4, it is an offence to organise an unlawful lottery or to sell or distribute such lottery tickets. A licence has to be taken to promote a lottery as an incident of entertainment but none of the prizes shall be money as per Section 5. Under Section 4, it is an offence to organise an unlawful lottery or to sell or distribute such lottery tickets. A licence has to be taken to promote a lottery as an incident of entertainment but none of the prizes shall be money as per Section 5. Section 6 declares all private lotteries to be unlawful unless the promoter has obtained a licence in respect of such lottery but the whole proceeds after deducting expenses shall be devoted to the prizes and for the purposes of the society, there has to be no wide publicity other than to its members and every ticket shall bear the name and address of the promoter and the sale is restricted to its members. Breach of any of the conditions in Sub-section (2) is punishable with fine extending to one thousand rupees for the first offence, two thousand rupees for the second offence and for subsequent offences, imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. (c) Under Explanation to the Section, 'private lottery' means sale of tickets and chances for the prizes is confined either to the member of the society or to persons who work or reside in the same premises, the expression 'society' includes a club, institution, organisation or other association of persons. Licence under the Act has to be granted by the Collector under Section 7 on payment of fee and on such conditions as may be prescribed. However, under Section 8, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the Rules thereunder, it shall be lawful for the State Government by special or general order to prohibit the grant of licences in respect of a lottery of class of lotteries, direct that no licence specified in such order shall be granted without its previous approval, to issue such instructions pertaining to the grant of licences under the Act as it may deem proper and to permit sale of tickets of lotteries organised by other State Governments with whom it has reciprocal arrangemnts. Collector has power to suspend or cancel a licence under Section 9. (d) Section 10 levies tax at the rate of 25 per cent of the total sum received in respect of a lottery under Section 5 or 6. Section 11 prescribes mode of recovery of tax. Collector has power to suspend or cancel a licence under Section 9. (d) Section 10 levies tax at the rate of 25 per cent of the total sum received in respect of a lottery under Section 5 or 6. Section 11 prescribes mode of recovery of tax. AH sums due under the Act are recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 12. Section 13 enjoins on the promoter of a lottery to keep and maintain accounts and submit to the Collector statements in such forms as may be prescribed. Under Rule 10 of the M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar) Niyam, 1974, the books of account to be kept shall contain the number of tickets printed, the price of tickets and the prizes, the number of tickets sold, the total proceeds of the lottery, the expenses incurred for printing and stationery, the amounts devoted to the prizes and to the purposes of the society and the tax paid. Returns have to be submitted in form E under Rule 11. Section 14 imposes penalty for failure to keep accounts or submit the same. Section 15 empowers the Collector to require production of accounts for inspection. Section 16 gives power of entry and search. Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Collector may appeal to the Commissioner, which will be subject to revision under Section 27 by the State Government. Section 28 empowers the State Government to exempt totally or partially from the payment of tax under this Act any lottery, the net proceeds of which are to be devoted to a charitable purpose. Section 29 gives rule making power to the State Government. Section 30 states that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to (a) a lottery organised by the Central Government or the Government of M. P. and (b) a lottery specially authorised by the State Government. (e) It is, therefore, clear that all lotteries, except those organised by the Governments, are private lotteries, which are to be restricted to its members only and shall be subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and to tax under Section 10, which the State Government may exempt if the net proceeds are devoted to a charitable purpose and accounts to be maintained as per Rule 10 and statements to be submitted to the Collector under Section 13. But Section 30 saves all Government lotteries and lotteries specially authorised by the State Government from the purview of the Act. It has not been defined as to what are 'the lotteries specially authorised by the State Government', but according to us lotteries specially authorised can only be those referred to in Clause (d) of Section 8 i. e. lotteries organised by other State Governments with whom the State of M. P. has reciprocal arrangements, in view of the limited scope for private lotteries under the Act. 15. (i) By an undated application made to the Finance Secretary of the State Government, Maharaja Martand Singh, President of Churhat Society, sought permission, as per conditions to be laid down, to organise a lottery/ raffle to collect substantial funds for the purposes of Churhat Society i. e. helping the handicapped and destitute children of Churhat area and for their rehabilitation. It was mentioned that on hearing from the Government, Churhat Society will appoint agents for the conduct of the lottery and that brochure was being enclosed about Churhat Society. It appears that the application was received in the Finance Department on 30-11-1983. The Finance Secretary wrote back on 16-12-1983 that the Government has agreed to permit Churhat Society to hold lottery/raffle for the benefit of children though it did not receive the details about Churhat Society. It was pointed out that the Collector being the authority to grant the permission, Churhat Society should apply to the Collector for permission. The Secretary also instructed the Collector on the same day that the Government has "no objection" for conducting the lottery/raffle by the Society for mobilizing resources for humanitarian cause but the promoter of a private lottery has to obtain a licence under Section 7 of the Lottery Act from the Collector on payment of such fees and subject to such conditions as may he prescribed. So the Collector was requested to grant the licence under Section 7 when so applied for by Churhat Society and the Government merely gave its approval. Rightly, the Finance Secretary advised Churhat Society to get a licence under Section 7 from the Collector for running a private lottery under Section 6 of the Act. (ii) So it not correct to say that the State Government had given "special authorisation" to Churhat Society to run a lottery under Section 30 (b). Rightly, the Finance Secretary advised Churhat Society to get a licence under Section 7 from the Collector for running a private lottery under Section 6 of the Act. (ii) So it not correct to say that the State Government had given "special authorisation" to Churhat Society to run a lottery under Section 30 (b). Firstly, only lotteries organised by other State Governments alone could be specially authorised under this provision and secondly the Lottery Act does not contemplate private lotteries except those mentioned in Section 5 and 6, since the lottery to be run by Churhat Society was not for entertainment, its lottery could only be under Section 6. This will be evident from the letter of Shri Ajay Singh, Secretary of Churhat Society, dated 29-12-1983 and the application under Section 6 in form-B prescribed for licence as Churhat Society wanted to organise a raffle for humanitarian cause. Consequently, the Collector issued a licence in From-D on 3-1-1984 under Section 7 subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, for running a private lottery under Section 6 to be held within one year. So there can be no manner of doubt that Churhat Society was granted licence to organise "a private lottery" under Section 6, However, it is clear that Churhat Society only wanted a formal permission to run the lottery to get credibility of the lottery as being permitted by the State Government and was least bothered about the provisions of the Act, Rules or licence conditions because of its high connections. 16. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the State Government is empowered under Section 30 (b) to specially authorise a private lottery as has been organised by Churhat Society, we have to consider the plea of the State Government that it had consciously given special authorisation to Churhat Society under this provision to run its lottery. The letters of the Finance Secretary dated 16-12-1983 show on the contrary that Churhat Society was asked to obtain a licence under Section 7 from the Collector, the Government only gave its 'no objection', 'recommendation' to the Collector for issuing a licence under Section 7. The letters of the Finance Secretary dated 16-12-1983 show on the contrary that Churhat Society was asked to obtain a licence under Section 7 from the Collector, the Government only gave its 'no objection', 'recommendation' to the Collector for issuing a licence under Section 7. The letters of the Secretary do not mention Section 30 (b) and if by these letters special authorisation was given by the Government to Churhat Society to run the private lottery, then why the Society was asked to get a licence Under Section 7 and what was the necessity for the Society to have applied under Section 6 to the Collector for the private lottery and the Collector then issuing a licence under Section 7. The State Government wants to take shelter under this provision in order to keep the lottery run by Churhat Society outside the purview of the law, knowing fully well that Churhat Society with impunity flagrantly voloated the provisions of the Act, Rules and licence conditions and its actions cannot be defended under any circumstances and to save itself from the embarrassment because Churhat Society being managed by the close relations of the Chief Minister, under the circumstances no penal action would be pragmatically feasible against them. The false plea of the State Government has been exposed by the then Chief Minister Shri Motilal Vora, the Respondent No. 2, now a Central Cabinet Minister, in his affidavit that he got the matter thoroughly examined by the Finance and Law Departments and there was no doubt that it was a private lottery, licence being granted under Section 7 and he granted exemption under Section 28 to Churhat Society as the purpose appeared charitable and in anticipation of Cabinet approval. He reiterated that there was neither special authorisation under Section 30 (b)of the Act nor any confusion regarding the nature of the lottery. The State filed its counter-affidavit through the Joint Finance Secretary that Shri Vora was not the Chief Minister when special authorisation was granted on 16-12-1983 under Section 30 (b) and his affidavit is based on memory only. But then the Joint Secretary also has no personal knowledge and he deposed from the records, which he had no occasion to deal earlier, whereas Shri Vora while granting exemption, got the record examined by two Departments and so his affidavit is more authentic. 17. But then the Joint Secretary also has no personal knowledge and he deposed from the records, which he had no occasion to deal earlier, whereas Shri Vora while granting exemption, got the record examined by two Departments and so his affidavit is more authentic. 17. Now let us see what was the stand taken in the earlier petition filed by Mahendra Kumar Jain (M. P. No. 820/87, withdrawn on 18-1-88) wherein the Petitioner there had prayed for a direction to the State Government for recovering tax from Churhat Society amounting to 25% of the net proceeds of the lottery. The petition was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition since in the meanwhile tax exemption was granted on 15-5-1987 to Churhat Society. The State Government in its return had then submitted that the application of Churhat Society was considered by the Collector and a licence was granted, the Finance Secretary had only stated that if any application is made by the Society the same may be considered for grant of licence. It was further submited that the application for grant of licence was made and the same was sent to the proper authority as required under the Act; the Collector considered the application and issued a licence; if any application is received by any higher authority, the same can be forwarded to the proper authority for taking action on it; the action of the Government cannot be said to be illegal or per se bad. 18. In the return running into 9 pages, there was not even a whisper of Section 30 (b), much less any mention about special authorisation issued to Churhat Society under that Section. So the present plea of 'consciously granting special authorisation under Section 30 (b)' is an afterthought and made only to cover the misdeeds of Churhat Society in running the lottery. The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commr AIR 1978 SC 851 . has held: When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 19. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 19. The licence was issued on 3-1-1984 to Churhat Society under Section 7 of the Act to run a private lottery under Section 6 within a year' subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules. Churhat Society was to run only one raffle/lottery at Sidhi, the time and place were to be intimated later on and the sample of the tickets was to be shown before issuing the same for sale. The address of Churhat Society in the application was shown to be Churhat but all correspondence was from Rewa, showing that Churhat Society maintained no office at Churhat, though it was shown as its registered address. The samples of tickets were never shown for approval before issuing the same for sale. The tickets showed the promoter to be Churhat Children Welfare Society without giving its address. With the result, many of the prize winners had to run from pillars to post without able to locate the office of Churhat Society either at Churhat or Rewa within 45 days. In fact, the prize money was to be given and disputes settled by the organising agent at Delhi, if made within 45 days. Out of the prizes worth Rs. 7,856 crores, claims of prizes amounting to Rs. 1.907 crores were entertained though this amount has even not been disbursed finally. Rule 7 of the Lottery Rule mentions that the licence is granted personally to the promoter, who is prohibited from assigning or transferring the working of the licence. Yet Churhat Society without any compunction entered into an agreement with A & A Enterprises, the Respondent No. 8, appointing it as the organising agent to run the lotteries on payment of guarantee money of rupees one crore without interference by Churhat Society. The organising agent was to take balance amount of the profits and also the undisbursed amounts of the prizes, it being the sole Judge to decide all claims about the prizes. Tickets worth rupees 15 crores were to be printed by the agent, in bearing all the expenses and for additional tickets, Churhat Society was to get 7% additional profit but the draws to be conducted at Sidhi or such other place as Churhat Society may decide. Tickets worth rupees 15 crores were to be printed by the agent, in bearing all the expenses and for additional tickets, Churhat Society was to get 7% additional profit but the draws to be conducted at Sidhi or such other place as Churhat Society may decide. Under Section 6, Churhat Society could not share profits with its agent derived from running the lottery. No approval was taken for appointing organising agent. Therefore, the agreement entered with the organising agent was unlawful and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act as it defeated the provisions of the Lottery Act and the Rules. 20. The Chairman of Churhat Society in his undated letter sought permission to run a lottery/raffle for effectively carrying out the function which Churhat Society has taken upon itself. The Finance Secretary wrote back saying that the State Government has 'agreed to permit' Churhat Society to hold lottery/raffle He also wrote to the Collector that the Government has 'no objection' for conducting lottery/raffle by Churhat Society for humanitarian cause and so a licence may be granted. The Secretary in his application in Form-B under Section 6 mentioned that Churhat Society proposed to organise a raffle for raising funds for humanitarian purpose on regular basis. The Collector on 3 1-1984 issued a licence for promotion of a private lottery within one year. It is clear that the application was for organising a lottery and the licence was also for conducting a private lottery and, therefore, Churhat Society was not authorised to hold more than one draw though the Society was free to hold the draw within one year. It was brought to the notice of the State Government that although the Society permitted to hold a lottery i. e. one draw only, it has already organised three draws and was proposing to hold the fourth draw, so it asked the Collector, Rewa, to stop further draws. The Collector replied that he is not aware of the draws as he has neither granted any licence nor he has any information in the matter. The State Government then asked the Collector, Sidhi, to stop further draws. The Collector replied that he is not aware of the draws as he has neither granted any licence nor he has any information in the matter. The State Government then asked the Collector, Sidhi, to stop further draws. The Collector wrote to Churhat Society on 13-11-1984 that it had applied to hold one raffle only and this would be intimated as and when the raffle draw takes place but the Society had neither intimated the date of the raffle nor submitted sample ticket for approval. The licence was issued for only one draw and, as such, any further draw on the said licence was unlawful. Hence the Society was advised not to go ahead with the next draw without necessary permission. Further, the Stale Government immediately required the following information: (i) Whether Churhat Society has organised only one draw of the raffle or more ? (ii) What were the amounts proposed for the first three prizes of the raffle ? and (iii) How much amount has been distributed ? 21. Churhat Society did not reply to the queries but went on holding 2 major and 7 mini draws thereafter openly and unbrazenly, flouting the directions of the Collector, between 15-12-1984 to 7-4-1985 i.e. even after expiry of the period of the licence on 2-1-1985 without let or hindrance by the Collector or the State Government, of which Shri Arjun Singh remained the Chief Minister up to 12-3-1985, which means one major and 7 mini draws were unlawfully held by Churhat Society during his regime. Could the Chief Minister have been unaware of the happenings since Churhat Society was managed by his close relations and one of his son was the Secretary and an active member of Churhat Society. The Society did not furnish any returns as required under the Act and the Rules. The Collector just closed his eyes and the Government machinery was just overlooking the development helplessly. Yet the Society had the audacity to ask the Collector to condone the defaults on 8-10-1986. In the meanwhile, complaints poured in that holders of prize winning tickets have not been paid their prizes and there were queries in this regard by the Central Government, which it seems the State Government went on ignoring. 22. Yet the Society had the audacity to ask the Collector to condone the defaults on 8-10-1986. In the meanwhile, complaints poured in that holders of prize winning tickets have not been paid their prizes and there were queries in this regard by the Central Government, which it seems the State Government went on ignoring. 22. But surprisingly on 10-4-1987 the Collector allowed the application of Churhat Society and meekly condoned all the defaults/breaches by Churhat Society by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and Section 23 of the Limitation Act by saying that in the licence it was not specified as to the number of draws to be held and the date from which the period of one year had to be reckoned and because of this lacuna in the licence and in the absence of any proforma for furnishing the accounts, according to him, it would be fair to give 'benefit of doubt' to the Society. Under Section 23 of the Limitation Act, in case of a suit for compensation for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury results therefrom, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the injury results. The section applies only to suits based on tort and does not apply to a case of negligence which constitutes a breach of contract. We fail to see what relevance this provision has for being referred to by the Collector for condoning the breaches by Churhat Society. Under Section 23 of the old Limitation Act, in case of continuing breach of contract or in case of continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach or the tort continue. This provision has also no application here. Section 21 of the M. P. General Clauses Act provides that where there is power to issue order, then that power includes a power to add, amend, vary or rescind any order. Certainly, under this provision, the Collector had the power to extend the period of the licence issued under the Lottery Act in a case where the lottery could not be held within the prescribed period for some reason or other. The extension can be granted to enable the lottery to be held thereafter. The Collector also could add, amend, vary or rescind the licence conditions. The extension can be granted to enable the lottery to be held thereafter. The Collector also could add, amend, vary or rescind the licence conditions. Here the Collector in his letter mentioned that the licence was only for one draw of the lottery and any further draw would be unlawful. Section 6 of the Lottery Act says that all private lottery without licence is unlawful. It follows that all draws, beyond one draw, held by Churhat Society were unlawful and so also the draws held after the expiry of the licence period. Under the circumstances, the Collector was not empowered to condone anything which the Act declared to be unlawful. The Collector also could not have condoned the non-submission of statutory returns, which has been made penal under the Act and the Rules. The Collector had no jurisdiction to condone the unlawful acts on the flimsy pretext suiting the Society that the licence did not specify the number of draws and the time from which the period of one year of the licence had to commence. The period of the licence started from the date of issue and as mentioned earlier the application for licence was for one draw only and licence was also for one draw. We are, therefore, of the view that the Collector has passed the order illegally and without jurisdiction. The plea taken of the State in its return that the licence did not specify the number of the draws and the period of commencement of one year, is contrary to official record. 23. (a) Churhat Society followed more in violating than in observing the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Licence conditions. The Society had applied and was granted a licence to hold one draw for its lottery within one year from 3-1-1984. Obviously within one year of the grant of the licence. Instead, it had held 3 major draws between 14-7-1984 to 7-11-1984 and when the Collector brought this fact to the notice of the Society that such draws were unlawful and not to hold any further draws, the Society ignored the direction and went on holding 2 major and 7 mini draws between 15-12-1984 to 7-4-1985, even after expiry of the licence on 2-1-1985. The Collector merely remained a silent spectator. The Collector merely remained a silent spectator. Churhat Society did not feel it at all necessary to get fresh permission for holding more draws or for extension of the period of the licence. The Society had undertaken to intimate the time, place and date of the draw and also get the sample of the tickets approved before issuing them for sale but defaulted in fulfilling these undertakings. The Society had also mentioned that the place of the draw invariably would be at Sidhi but all the draws were said to have been held at Rewa, beyond the reach and control of Collector Sidhi. (b) Rule 7 of the Lottery Rules stipulate that the licence is granted personally to the promoter and he is forbidden from assigning or transferring the licence or its working. Yet within 12 days of the issue of the licence on 3-1-1984, Churhat Society entered into an agreement on 14-1-1984 with A & A Enterprises, Respondent No. 8, a professional concern dealing with lotteries, appointing it as the organising agent to exclusively run the lottery and share profits without any interference by the Society, the agent in addition was to keep all unclaimed and undisbursed prizes. It is true that the Chairman of the Society in undated letter did mention that on hearing from the Government, the Society will resolve to appoint agents for conduct of the lottery but the Government never gave any such permission nor it was permissible under the Act to appoint an agent to run the private lottery. 24. Churhat Society thus (a) contravened the provisions of Section 6 by sharing the profits with the organising agent, (b) by making wide publicity in all India papers about its draws, (c) by not giving the address of the Society printed on the tickets, with the result the prize winners wasted time in locating the office of the Society at Churhat and at Rewa and thereby period of 45 days required for lodging the claim was lost, (d) by not confining the sale of the lottery tickets to its members only, (e) The Society did not pay the taxes within 30 days of the draw as required under Section 11(3) of the Act. (f) The Society did not keep and maintain accounts of the lottery nor submitted returns of account as required under Section 13 read with Rule 10, the returns were required to be submitted in Form E appended to the rules, (g) The submission of audited annual statement of accounts of the Society to the Registrar of Firms and Societies and even to the Director of Lotteries is not compliance of Section 13 of the Act and Rule 10 of the Rules, (h) The statement of accounts were required to be submitted in Form E prescribed in the Rules, yet the Collector opined that no proforma is prescribed. (i) Till today, the Society has not furnished the expenses incurred in running the 12 draws, the profits earned by the organising agent and the amounts retained by it towards unclaimed prizes, who were the winners of the first, and second prizes of these draws and how they were paid. The Society merely furnished the names of prize winners of the third prizes of Rs. 10,000/-to rupees one lac without giving full names and other particulars of the owner and mode of payment. 25. Complaints started pouring in that holders of prize winning tickets are not being paid their prizes and the Government of India has also been pressing the State Government to send information about the conduct of lottery by Churhat Society, The State Government wrote to Collector Sidhi on 9-10-1984 that the Society was given licence for only one draw but it has already unlawfully held number of draws and the Collector was asked to give information about the funds collected from sale of lottery tickets and list of prize winners. So the Collector by his latter dated 13-11-1984 asked the Society to stop further draws and give the particulars asked for by the State Government. After six months. Chartered Accountant of the Society gave some information on 29 5-1985 and enclosed audited accounts of the Society for the years ending 31-3-1984 and 31-3-1985, showing receipt of about a crore of rupees from its organising agent. But he gave no information about the total receipts, details of payment of first to third prizes and the profits earned from the venture and in the meanwhile Churhat Society unauthorisedly held two more major and 7 mini draws between 15-12-1984 to 7-4-1985 and then the Society applied for exen ption from tax on 19-8-1985. But he gave no information about the total receipts, details of payment of first to third prizes and the profits earned from the venture and in the meanwhile Churhat Society unauthorisedly held two more major and 7 mini draws between 15-12-1984 to 7-4-1985 and then the Society applied for exen ption from tax on 19-8-1985. 26. In response to the supplementary question in the Rajya Sabha on 24-7-1986 the State Government submitted its report that the Society was formed with the object of providing education, rehabilitation and help to children, to popularise and implement family programme and other social works and so it was permitted to conduct a lottery within one year. But according to the information the Society has entered into agreement with M/s. A. & A. Enterprises for conduct of the lottery as organising agent and the Society has held 5 major and 7 mini draws though the State Government permitted only one draw. So the Collector has issued a show cause notice to the Society and it has approached the Collector for condonation of lapses. The Society was at present running a hospital with number of doctors and engaged in other welfare projects. The State Government has taken a decision to modify the existing law to make it more stringent. The State Government kept out of focus the darker side i. e. the various anomalies found by the Director about the running of the lottery by the Society and highlighted the rosier side. 27. (a). The State Government had asked the Director of Lotteries to send his report, which he gave on 27-9-1986 on the basis of the information given by the Society. The Society printed tickets worth Rs. 14,19,20000/-, sold tickets worth Rs. 5,44,-9,590/-, disbursed prizes worth Rs. 1,90,78,992/-, received Rs. 98,62,000/- towards its guaranteed money. However, the Director could not certify about the correctness of these figures. The Director also found that declared prizes were much more than the prizes actually disbursed. Head Constable Mahalingam of Madras City Police had complained about non-payment of his second prize of rupees 5 lacs in respect of ticket No. CE. 3192475 for the 7th draw ? (second draw) but the Secretary of Churhat Society has informed on 5-8-1986 that the amount has been paid to him and Shri Gupta Chartered Accountant also orally informed that all prize money have been paid. 3192475 for the 7th draw ? (second draw) but the Secretary of Churhat Society has informed on 5-8-1986 that the amount has been paid to him and Shri Gupta Chartered Accountant also orally informed that all prize money have been paid. The Secretary, however, further informed that some prizes were not paid because of Income-tax raids. (b) The Director referred to the statement of the Congress-I M. L. A. Shri Suresh Seth in the Vidhan Sabha that through such lotteries people of the State are being deceived and crores of rupees are being defalcated. The Director complained that the Society was not furnishing the required information to his queries. He found the following irregularities: (i) Instead of one draw allowed, the Society held 12 draws. (ii) The draws were held beyond the licence period. (iii) The Society has failed to furnish the details of the expenses incurred in printing tickets and the amounts received by it from its organising agent from time to time and when the amounts were credited in the books of the Society. (iv) The details of the prizes not disbursed and reasons for not giving those prizes have not been disclosed. (c) The Director, therefore, recommended that tax exemption be not granted to the Society till full informations are furnished. In the meanwhile, Mahendra Kumar Jain filed the petition M. P. No. 1874/86 (now No. 820/87) on 12-12-1986 at Indore and prayed that tax exemption be not granted to Churhat Society. By that time, Shri Arjun Singh become Vice-President of the All India Congress (I). In spite of the various irregularities and illegalities and the adverse reports of the Director, the then Chief Minister in haste exempted the Society under Section 28 of the Act on 15-5-1987 in anticipation of Cabinet's approval. Exemption from payment of tax under Section 28 can only be granted if the net proceeds of the lottery are to be devoted to a charitable purpose. Admittedly, here the net proceeds of the lottery were shared by the Society and the organising agent and, therefore, the Society was disentitled to get exemption from payment of tax. Exemption from payment of tax under Section 28 can only be granted if the net proceeds of the lottery are to be devoted to a charitable purpose. Admittedly, here the net proceeds of the lottery were shared by the Society and the organising agent and, therefore, the Society was disentitled to get exemption from payment of tax. Even otherwise, the Chief Minister ought to have requisitioned the necessary information from the Society about the conduct of the lottery, actual amount paid towards prizes, unclaimed prizes and the total profits earned by the organising agent in conducting the 12 draws of the lottery which could not be exempted from tax and should have required the organising agent to deposit 25% of its profits towards tax under Section 10 before deciding to grant the exemption. The State Cabinet gave its approval on 10-5-1988. The exemption granted before realizing the taxes from the organising agent towards the profits earned by it, was not in the interest of public revenue. Under the circumstances, of the case, the State Government was not justified in granting exemption to the Society from payment of tax and also in particular with regard to draws of the lottery held unlawfully after the first draw. In fact, the tax should have been deposited within 30 days of each draw and the plea of the Society that the Government can still recover the tax from the agent is no excuse. 28. (a) We have now to consider the privilege claimed by the State Government about the production of the original Government file of Churhat Lottery. The Petitioner filed 1. A. No. 986/88 for production of the originals of the documents referred to in the petition and some of the copies filed. In reply, the State filed photostat copies of the original documents but claimed privileges, without disclosing grounds, in respect of internal correspondence between the Director of Lotteries and the Finance Department. On 6-7-1988 the Petitioner wanted the State to furnish the dates of the Chief Minister's order and the subsequent exemption from tax to Churhat Society under Section 28 of the Lottery Act but the learned Advocate General claimed privilege about disclosure of the dates. He was directed to file reply claiming privilege. On 6-7-1988 the Petitioner wanted the State to furnish the dates of the Chief Minister's order and the subsequent exemption from tax to Churhat Society under Section 28 of the Lottery Act but the learned Advocate General claimed privilege about disclosure of the dates. He was directed to file reply claiming privilege. On 4-8-1988, the Additional Advocate General informed that in the return the State will disclose the grounds for claiming privilege but no such ground for claiming privilege has been taken in the return. The Petitioner filed I. A. No. 8086/88 for calling original documents and I. A. No. 8505/88 for permission to peruse those documents in view of the contrary stand taken by the Ex-Chief Minister in his affidavit. The State in its reply submitted that since the original file contains the internal correspondence and discussions between various officials, Ministers and the Chief Minister and the Cabinet proceedings, these are privileged documents and the Petitioner be not permitted to see the file, which was produced under sealed cover for perusal of the Court. No affidavit was filed in support. The file does contain interdepartmental correspondence and proceedings of the Cabinet, but we fail to see anything confidential about it when the file is regarding grant of licence and giving exemption from payment of tax to a private lottery, unless the Government wants to hide its actions from the public view. (b) It seems in this case the Government has labelled such ordinary documents relating to a private lottery as confidential and kept them away from public view. It is nobody's case that there should be unlimited access to information of every kind but right to get information of public interest is a fundamental right of the citizen in a democracy unless such information is vital for the security of the State or in matters of defence or for affairs of the State or for maintenance of friendly relations with foreign countries or such compelling reasons. The Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors. (supra) has held: The concept of an open Government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1). The Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta and Ors. v. President of India and Ors. (supra) has held: The concept of an open Government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1). Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands. The approach of the Court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of privilege under Section 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act and held that the correspondence between the Chief Justice of Delhi, the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India about appointment of a High Court Judge could not possibly relate to the affairs of the State and its disclosure would not injure public interest. The State relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 782 , that Cabinet papers are, therefore, protected from disclosure not by reason of their contents but because of the class to which they belong, the Cabinet papers also include papers brought into existence for the purpose of preparing submission to Cabinet. These observations have to be seen in the context in which they were made. The Supreme Court has observed there that where the documents like official notes which are sought to be produced in Court are part of the preparation of documents leading to the formation of the advice tendered to the President of India and as such are privileged under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution, which provides that question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any Court, the Court is precluded from asking for production of such documents. The Cabinet decision in question had reference to Art 74 (2) of the Constitution and hence was held to be pivileged. We have to see whether the disclosure will serve the public interest better than withholding of it. The Cabinet decision in question had reference to Art 74 (2) of the Constitution and hence was held to be pivileged. We have to see whether the disclosure will serve the public interest better than withholding of it. According to us, in the instant case, full disclosure will be condusive to clean and open administration in public interest. The oblique motive behind the claim for privilege seems to give protection to the State Government from exposure for its. 29. On going through the official file concerning the Churhat Lottery case, we are in a better position to know under what circumstances, Churhat Society got the lottery licence and how it got exemption from payment of tax under Section 28 of the Lottery Act. On receipt of the application from Maharaja Martand Singh, Chairman of Churhat Society, on 30-11-1983 the Finance Secretary directed that it be processed quickly for obtaining orders from the Finance Minister, his deputy ordered processing today on 2 12-1983. Then the office noted on 5-12-83 that the permission be granted on the condition that the lottery be run under the supervision of the Director of Lotteries and the profits invested in some scheduled bank so that Churhat Society can carry on its activity on the interest earned. The Deputy Secretary noted that the licence has to be granted by the Collector under Section 7 of the Lottery Act and the Government can have no objection in granting of licence and the same be communicated to the Collector for completing the formalities. This was endorsed by the Finance Secretary and then by the Finance Minister on 16-12-1983. Accordingly, Churhat Society was intimated to approach the Collector for the licence and the Collector was also instructed to issue the licence. Churhat Society then applied under Section 6 and got the lottery licence from the Collector on 3-1-1984. So it is incorrect to say that the State Government consciously granted the special authorisation under Section 30 (b). 30. After the case was closed for orders, the Respondent No. 8 i. e. the organising agent, filed I. A. No. 471/89 with Vidhan Sabha proceedings of 26-7-1985, when there was call attention motion on Churhat Lottery in the Vidhan Sabha. This Respondent contends that the Minister of Finance gave a statement that the lottery conducted by Churhat Society was not a private lottery. This Respondent contends that the Minister of Finance gave a statement that the lottery conducted by Churhat Society was not a private lottery. The Petitioner and other Respondents agreed that judicial notice can be taken of the Vidhan Sabha proceedings as published in the official publication. But the inference which the Respondent No. 8 wants to draw is not made out from reading of these proceedings. What the Finance Minister said at page 1 was that the State Government has not issued any licence for private lottery but has given its approval for 7 lotteries including Churhat lottery. The Minister further said at page 3 that Sections 8 and 30 have to be read together, either State can grant permission or issue licence. The Government has only given permission and not issued licence to Churhat Society. The Minister never said that any special authorisation was granted under Section 30 (b). So according to the Finance Minister the Government had only granted permission under Section 8. At page 5, the Minister also said that instructions were given to the Collectors that prior to issue of licence for lottery, they should seek permission from the Government as there were several irregularities in private lotteries. The Minister further said that taxes have not been paid and Churhat Society is not furnishing information. At page 72 of the book, Schedule A gives list of private lotteries, Churhat lottery finds place at serial No. 1 for the year 1984, that it was granted licence for one draw only by the Collector, the Government only granted approval and further information have not been received. The Petitioner has also filed photostat copy of the Vidhan Sabha proceedings of 26-12-1986 wherein the Finance Minister gave answer in the affirmative when a Member asked as to whether Churhat lottery was permitted to hold 1 draw but it held 12 draws, no accounts have been furnished till to date nor any returns submitted. 31. On 9-10-1984 the State Government wrote to the Collector for information on the basis of newspaper reports that Churhat Society has already held 3draws and the 4th draw was shortly going to be held while Churhat Society was granted permission for holding one draw only. The Collector, therefore, asked Churhat Society on 13-11-1984 to stop further draws and give details of the draws and the disbursement of prizes. The Collector, therefore, asked Churhat Society on 13-11-1984 to stop further draws and give details of the draws and the disbursement of prizes. The Chief Secretary of the State Government received a letter from the Home Department of the Government of India on 20-4-1985 that Head Constable Mahalingam of Madras City Police got IInd prize of rupees five lacs on his ticket but he has not been paid any amount and enquiries with the lottery agent revealed that Churhat Society is being run by a leading politician in M.P. and there are several others who have not been paid their prizes, reminders were sent on 25-5-1985, 18-7-1985, 9-8-1985 and 3-9-1985. The State Government, therefore, sought necessary information from the Director of Lotteries and the Collector, Sidhi. In spite of repeated queries, the Collector failed to get any information from Churhat Society and so he was asked on 16-4-1985 to immediately apprise the Government as in newspapers disquieting reports were being published. The Collector reported on 18-7-1985 that Churhat Society is not furnishing any accounts but has merely submitted a list of prize winners without giving any particulars through its Chartered Accountant at Bhopal, who may please be contacted. The Secretary of Churhat Society applied on 19-8-1985 for exemption from payment of tax under the Lottery Act since Churhat Society has been exempted from Income-tax by the Government of India and enclosed audited account for the year ending 31-3-1984. Getting no response, the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel wrote a personal letter to the Chief Secretary to the Government of M. P. bringing to his notice an article 'The great VIP Lottery Hoax' in the Sunday Magzine (25-31st May, 1986) and called for a detailed report. So, Finance Secretary had to write a personal letter to Collector, Sidhi, on 20-6-1986 to send his report through a personal messenger within 4/5 days. By this time, Shri Ashok Das, the Respondent No. 6, taken charge as Collector, Sidhi, and things started moving in favour of Churhat Society. 32. The Director of the State Lotteries sought certain information from Churhat Society on 23-11-1985 in order to submit a report to the State Government. He also complained to the State Government that Churhat Society has not sent full information. 32. The Director of the State Lotteries sought certain information from Churhat Society on 23-11-1985 in order to submit a report to the State Government. He also complained to the State Government that Churhat Society has not sent full information. Churhat Society replied on 1-12-1985 that it has so far received 50,85,045/- from its organising agent, enclosed photostat copies of the result-sheets of the 12 draws and the audited account for the year ending 31-3-1985. The Director wrote to the State Government on 29-3-1986 that unless and until Churhat Society furnishes full particulars of the prize winners of prizes of Rs. 10,000/- and above and about the unclaimed prizes, no tax exemption be given. The Director, however, gave an interim report on 31-3-1986 to the State Government that Head Constable Mahalingam of Madras City Police got IInd prize of rupees five lacs for the second draw but he has not been paid the amount by Churhat Society. The organising agent of Churhat Society has informed that as per conditions printed on the back side of ticket No. CE. 3192475, the claim was not submitted within 45 days but after 225 days, so claim is not tenable, still it is being enquired into as to whether the ticket is genuine or not. The ticket was sent through the bank to Churhat first for collection but it was returned with the endorsement that there was no office of the Society at Churhat. The bank then sent the ticket to Rewa but it was again returned with the same endorsement. No address of the head office of the Society was printed on the ticket. The District Organiser of the savings, the Deputy Director of Lotteries and Director himself went to Churhat and Rewa, though they learnt that the office of Churhat Society was said to be at Rewa, the Chairman was living at Govindgarh and the Secretary at Bhopal and the other members who live at Rewa could give no information. It appeared that the address of head office of Churhat Society was not given deliberately so that most of the prize amounts remained unclaimed and then the same can be pocketed by the organising agent. Churhat Society has not furnished how much amounts of the prize money remained unclaimed and how much had gone to the agent. It appeared that the address of head office of Churhat Society was not given deliberately so that most of the prize amounts remained unclaimed and then the same can be pocketed by the organising agent. Churhat Society has not furnished how much amounts of the prize money remained unclaimed and how much had gone to the agent. The person actually in charge of the lottery was Chief Minister's brother Fan Vijay Singh but he is not even an office bearer of Churhat Society. Unless full information is furnished by the Society, it should not be granted tax exemption. This was endorsed by the Finance Secretary and the Chief Secretary and the then Chief Minister ordered on 15-5-1986 that at present it is not possible to extent Churhat Society from payment of tax. The Director again by his report dated 29-6-1986 reiterated that no exemption be granted till full information is furnished by Churhat Society. 33. (a) The Collector by his report dated 28-6-1986 mentioned that Head Constable Mahalingam has not received the prize amount and Churhat Society has received rupees 57 lacs out of 1 crore of guaranteed money, the Society's hospital is functioning with 4 doctors, its project of pregnant mothers and children below 3 years has been approved by the W.H.O., with the aid of Panchayats Department Working Women's Hostel is under construction, with the assistance of the District Administration the Society has organised camp for handicapped persons for distribution of try-cycles, callipers etc. (b) Because of these activities, the Collector on 4-10-1986 recommended tax exemption to Churhat Society. The Secretary of the Society on 8-10-1986 applied for regularisation of the lottery since all the twelve draws could not be held within a year and last two draws were held late due to unavoidable circumstances. This seems to be a tall claim as according to the Society it had on an average one indoor patient on each, day in the hospital during the period 1985 to 1987. During arguments, the Petitioner has filed an application that no appreciable work has been undertaken by the Society in respect of the hospital and other charitable nature. This will be evident on spot inspection. Surprisingly, this is opposed by the Respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6 as irrelevent and unnecessary in view of the Collector's note dated 10-4-1987. During arguments, the Petitioner has filed an application that no appreciable work has been undertaken by the Society in respect of the hospital and other charitable nature. This will be evident on spot inspection. Surprisingly, this is opposed by the Respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6 as irrelevent and unnecessary in view of the Collector's note dated 10-4-1987. (c) The reports of Collector were taken to be favourable reports by the State Government for giving tax exemption and the Chief Minister directed on 24-11-1987 that the matter be processed and the opinion of the Law Serctary obtained. The Law Secretary opined on 19-2-1987 that the Collector being the licensing authority, he can extend the period of the licence but he will have to exercise his discretion after having due care regarding payment of prizes to the winners, accounting and investments of profit, if any. The Chief Secretary directed issue of guide-lines to the Collector. Thereafter the Collector by his order dated 10-4-1987 condoned the irregularities by saying that the licence did neither specify the date from which the period of one year has to commence nor the number of the draws to be held, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the Society. The reasoning is contrary to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay by the Society that two draws were beyond the licence period due to unavoidable circumstances. So there was no confusion about the period of the licence or about the number of the draws but the Collector Shri Das on some pretext or other wanted to oblige the Society by condoning the illegalities although he had no power to do so. 34. The Chief Secretary noted in the file on 10-5-1987 that how the Collector has referred to Section 23 of the Limitation Act and he has nowhere in his order referred to or discussed the note of the Law Secretary that the Collector has to exercise his own discretion after having due care regarding payment of prizes to the winners, accounting and investment of profits by the Society. The Law Secretary remarked on 13/14-5-1987 that the order of the Collector does not indicate as to whether he has considered these factors and to that extent the order is not a speaking order and wanted opinion of the Advocate General in view of pendency of the writ petition. The Law Secretary remarked on 13/14-5-1987 that the order of the Collector does not indicate as to whether he has considered these factors and to that extent the order is not a speaking order and wanted opinion of the Advocate General in view of pendency of the writ petition. The Law Secretary opined on 15-5-1987 that the Advocate General has expressed that since no stay has been granted by the High Court, State is free to pass any order for exemption from tax and exemption has been granted to other lotteries also. The Finance Secretary endorsed that exemption be granted but the entire net proceeds of rupees one crore be used only for public welfare and charitable purposes. This was cleared by the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister approved the proposal in anticipation of the Cabinet's decision. It appears that the order regarding tax exemption to Churhat Society was passed hurriedly by the Chief Minister in anticipation of Cabinet's approval as required under the Business Rules. Perhaps, the promoter of the lottery hurried the matter to forestall any interim direction by this Court in the pending petition as it was apprehended that this Court may issue interim writ. A year back the then Chief Minister had passed an order that no tax exemption can be granted at present and nothing had changed during one year thereafter. The State Government just ignored the adverse reports of the Director of Lotteries and granted exemption based on the Collector's order, even though noting that it is not a speaking order and the Collector has not considered the relevant factors before passing the order. The Society has not furnished the full particulars of the prize winners, their mode of payments, the unclaimed prizes, the accounts of the 12 draws and the profits earned by the organising agent. The Government also failed to consider that tax exemption under Section 28 cannot be granted as the Society has shared the profits with the organising agent and entire profits not devoted to charitable purpose. The Cabinet gave approval on 10-5-1988 and till the filing of the return there is no reference to Section 30 (b). 35. Now let us see how the draws were held and prizes declared. All the 12 draws were said to have been held at Rewa instead of at Churhat as declared by Churhat Society in its application for lottery licence. 35. Now let us see how the draws were held and prizes declared. All the 12 draws were said to have been held at Rewa instead of at Churhat as declared by Churhat Society in its application for lottery licence. It does not appear, since no materials have been placed to show, that any wide publicity was given about the time and place of these draws which were held in presence of some selected Executive Officers as Judges but none belonging to the higher echelons of Division or District Administration. Some of these officers were judges for more than one draw. The Executive Engineer Urban Administration was a Judge 9 times, Health Officer of the Corporation and Director of Physical Education of the University 7 times, Assistant Development Commissioner and Reader in Medicine 3 times and the Executive Engineer, PWD, 2 times. For the last five draws, the judges were same except in the last draw when one of the judges i. e. Executive Engineer, Urban Administration, was replaced by Executive Engineer of the Corporation. The first prizes of 3 major draws i. e. 1 crore 20 lacs for the first draw, Rs. 77 lacs for the 2nd draw and 25 lacs for the 4th draw have not been paid to any one i. e. remained unclaimed and the first prize of 17 lacs for the 3rd major draw has been paid to one Smt. Amisha Virendra, full identity not disclosed. Similarly, none of the 1st prizes of 10 lacs for 7 mini draws except one, has been paid to any one. One first prize has been paid to one Sanjay Goel in 3rd mini draw. One Mohinder Singh was declared to have got first prize in the first mini draw and one Ashokji Gupta was declared to have got first prize in the second mini draw but these tickets were amongst the tickets seized by the income-tax authorities in raid on the organising agent's office. So out of 12 first prizes, only two first prizes have been paid and the rest 10 first prizes remained unclaimed. 36. Now let us see how the draws were held and prizes given. List of prize winners of the 1st major draw shows that 3 persons namely Vineet Garg, Shailesh Garg and Rahul Singh, each of whom got 5 IInd prizes of Rs. 36. Now let us see how the draws were held and prizes given. List of prize winners of the 1st major draw shows that 3 persons namely Vineet Garg, Shailesh Garg and Rahul Singh, each of whom got 5 IInd prizes of Rs. 10,000/- for holding 5 tickets of the same number in 5 series i. e. No. 3449380, 5248425 and 4518186. It has not been clarified that this Rahul Singh is not Ajay Singh, Respondent No. 7, who is also known as Rahul Singh. It is a strange coincidence as to how each of these 5 IInd prize winners could get hold of the same ticket numbers in 5 series. Interestingly enough, each of the following persons got 3 IInd prizes, Sarita Agarwal got for ticket Nos. 524845 in 3 series, Meenakshi Agarwal for Ticket Nos. 561361 in 3 series, Neelam Jally for ticket No. 5090827, Rajesh for ticket No. 3722909 in 3 series and Sumitra Agarwal for ticket no 3722909 in other 3 series. Similarly, number of persons were given two IInd prizes, holding same ticket number in two series. It is not known whether Vineeta Garg and Sarita Agarwal are relations as they pocketted all the IInd prizes in all the series on the same ticket number, so is the case of Shailash Garg and Meenakshi Agarwal. It is beyond comprehension as to how all these persons could hold the same ticket number in different series. Strangely, the first prize of 4 major draws and 5 minor draws have not been claimed by anyone. As per the agreement with the organising agent, all the unclaimed prizes were to be retained by the agent. It is clear that by giving inducement of becoming multimillion aer overnight, unwary citizens have been taken for a ride and deceived. It has not been clarified who is this Amisha Virendra who got 1st prize of 17 lacs in the 3rd major draw and Sanjay Goel who got 1st prize of 10 lacs in the mini draw. Churhat Society must give full particulars of all the prize winners as there are two many Agarwals, Gargs, Jains, Guptas and Goels amongst the prize winners. In spite of being pointedly required their full address to establish identities, were kept a guarded secret. 37. Churhat Society must give full particulars of all the prize winners as there are two many Agarwals, Gargs, Jains, Guptas and Goels amongst the prize winners. In spite of being pointedly required their full address to establish identities, were kept a guarded secret. 37. Regarding the payment of IInd prize of rupees five lacs to Head Constable Mahalingam of the Madras City Police on his ticket No. CE. 3192475 of the 2nd major draw, the organising agent informed Shri Ajay Singh on 30-7-1986 that the ticket is genuine and the matter is left to the Society to condone the delay in preferring the claim. Surprisingly, on 5-8-1986 i. e. within 5 days, Shri Ajay Singh informed the Director of Lotteries that 5 lacs has been paid to him. This was physically impossible because after getting approval from the Society the amount could not have been paid to a person in Madras within 5 days. In fact, in the letter of Shri Ajay Singh it was first typed that amount is also being paid but then scored out and written in ink has been paid without saying how and when. 38. In view of the finding recorded by us that the Society got a licence to run a private lottery under Section 6 of the Lottery Act, we need not go into the question as to the validity of Section 30 (b) of the Act. We have also held that only Lotteries conducted by other State Government with whom there are reciprocal arrangements can alone be granted special authorisation under Section 30 (b) and not to private lotteries. The Supreme Court in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 686 , has held- Vires need not be decided as cases could be disposed of without reference to question of vires-Courts must not enter into constitutional issues and attempt interpretation of provisions unless it is necessary for disposal of dispute. This apart, the learned Advocate General has argued that Section 30 (b) is controlled by Section 30 (a) since specially authorised lottery can only be run in the same way as State lotteries and for State Lottery guidelines have been framed by M. P. Lottery Rules, 1969. But even then the lotteries conducted by the Society were contrary to these Rules. But even then the lotteries conducted by the Society were contrary to these Rules. The lotteries were not conducted under the supervision of the Director of Lotteries, on the other hand the Director was kept in dark and even information sought by him were not supplied. The tickets could only be issued in denomination of rupee one only but the Society printed and sold tickets of denominations of rupees 2 to 20 mostly. The tickets were not printed in the Government press or any other press authorised by the Government. The total number of tickets printed for each draw was not decided by the Government. The Government did not stand guarantee for the prizes. Same person could not get more than one prize. Agents could be appointed for selling tickets and not for organising the lottery as has been done here by the organising agent. It has not been shown that the procedure prescribed under these Rules have been followed in holding the draws. If Section 30 (b) permits the State Government to specially authorise such lotteries as have been conducted by the Society, then this clause gives arbitrary, discriminatory, unguided and uncanalised power to the State. In any case, it is desirable that the State Legislature sooner or later clarifies the matter and the State Government frames rules regarding specially authorised lotteries. 39. Lastly, we must comment about the palatial mansion constructed by Shri Arjun Singh and his family at Kerva dam close to Bhopal near about the time or after the lotteries were conducted by Churhat Society as alleged. Shri Arjun Singh and his son Shri Ajay Singh tried to brush aside the same by simply saying that the allegations are irrelevant without trying to meet and clear the clouds raised. In fact, there is no specific denial made about the adverse allegations against them. Let us consider the averments in the petition made by a responsible person, who is the leader of the Opposition in Vidhan Sabha in this regard. Admittedly, Shri Arjun Singh was the Chief Minister when the licence was given to the Society to run the lottery and again when the tax exemption was granted by the Cabinet on 10-5-1988. Let us consider the averments in the petition made by a responsible person, who is the leader of the Opposition in Vidhan Sabha in this regard. Admittedly, Shri Arjun Singh was the Chief Minister when the licence was given to the Society to run the lottery and again when the tax exemption was granted by the Cabinet on 10-5-1988. It is said that Shri Arjun Singh had admitted in the Parliament that he has link with Churhat Society and it was formed after he got inspiration to do something for the welfare of the children. In fact, the Memorandum of Association is attested by an I.A.S. Officer who was his Personal Secretary then as alleged in M.P. No. 820/87. Churhat Society was being managed by his close relations, his son Ajay Singh was the Secretary of the Society and took a prominent part in conducting the lottery, answered to the queries made by the authorities concerned and kept liason with the organising agent. The Director of State Lotteries has mentioned that Shri Ran Vijay Singh, a brother of Shri Arjun Singh, was conducting the lottery from behind the scene though he was even not an office bearer of the Society. Shri Arjun Singh after being elected in the Vidhan Sabha as an Independent Member, made a statement on the floor of the House that the increasing incidents of corruption is eating into the very vitals of democracy and as a chosen representative of the people, it should be his first step as a MLA to place the list of his family's movable and immovable assets which was being kept open for inspection by anyone. The assets declared being: Movables:1. Car. 2. Rs. 2300/- compensation paid annually in lieu of resumption of Jagirdari. 3. Rs. 2500/- bank balance. 4. Rs. 10,000/- valuable and other articles. 5. Rs. 10,000/- Indsurance Policy. Immovable: 1. 110 acres of land. 2. Farm house. We suppose that he has still owns the Farm house and 110 acres of land with him as there is no statement to the contrary. 40. The Petitioner has alleged that Shri Arjun Singh and his family members have got a bungalow at Kerva Dam, it is estimated by the people concerned to be worth more than a crore of rupees. 40. The Petitioner has alleged that Shri Arjun Singh and his family members have got a bungalow at Kerva Dam, it is estimated by the people concerned to be worth more than a crore of rupees. It is said that only one item in the bungalow i. e. laying decent marble stones of 10,000 square feet which costs Rs. 150/- per square feet, i.e. costs of laying marble alone comes to 15 lacs. So the Petitioner claims that it is necessary to make the estimate of this bungalow by appointment of a Commissioner. This is said to be only one of his properties besides several others. Several times issues were raised in the Vidhan Sabha according to the Petitioner but without any proper answer. So the Petitioner requires him to show his present assets in full including the value of the Kerva Dam bungalow since his family members are concerned with Churhat lottery affair, regarding which the account has not been submitted, still, it is not only necessary in the interest of democracy but also with a view to maintain dignity of the high office of the Chief Minister that complete statement in respect of these assets of the family of Shri Arjun Singh is furnished before the High Court. It is expected by the Petitioner that there shall not be any hesitation in furnishing the same since it is presumed that the lofty ideal with which he made the disclosures in i960, would still be persisting in the mind and heart of Shri Arjun Singh and his family members. 41. We expected that Shri Arjun Singh is still imbibed with the same idealism even after assuming office as Minister and then as Chief Minister and could not have any hesitation in making full disclosures of his present assets, especially regarding the acquisition and construction of the mansion at Kerva Dam, particularly when he started his public life as a M.L.A. with a bank balance of Rs. 2500/- only. Thereafter he joined the ruling party and served as Minister, Leader of the Opposition and then as Chief Minister. Let us now see what he and his son have to say for clearing the clouds raised. 2500/- only. Thereafter he joined the ruling party and served as Minister, Leader of the Opposition and then as Chief Minister. Let us now see what he and his son have to say for clearing the clouds raised. In the return filed on behalf of Shri Arjun Singh and others, the averments of the Petitioner are said to be irrelevant for the purpose of this petition and have been made with a view to prejudice this Court regarding merits of the case. The submissions being malicious and irrelevant and, therefore, deserve to be struck off according to him. In the return filed on behalf of Shri Ajay Singh and Shri Martand Singh it is stated that the averments are irrelevant and need not be replied, they have been actuated by malice, ill-will, political motives and oblique consideration, and this Court can never allow itself to be converted into an arena for adjudication upon the kind of issues raised in this para. So, in fact, there is no specific denial at all by these two Respondents nor any explanation furnished. No affidavit has even been filed by Shri Arjun Singh in support of his return which is sworn by a Joint Secretary. The Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 , has held: In the present case there were serious allegations made against the Chief Minister and there were several matters of which he alone could have personal knowledge and therefore which he alone could deny, but what was, however, placed before the Court in answer to the charges made against the Chief Minister was an affidavit by the Secretary to the Government in the Medical Department who could only speak from official records and obviously not from personal knowledge about the several matters which were alleged against the Chief Minister. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to brush aside the allegations made by the Petitioner, particularly in respect of those matters where they were supported by some evidence of a documentary nature, seeing that there was no contradiction by those persons who alone could have contradicted them. Again, the Supreme Court in C. S. Rowjee v. State of Andh. Again, the Supreme Court in C. S. Rowjee v. State of Andh. Pra AIR 1964 SC 962 .- has further held: In this task which is thus cast on the Courts it would conduce to a more satisfactory disposal and consideration of them, if those against whom allegations are made came forward to place before the Court either their denials or their version of the matter, so that the Court may be in a position to judge as to whether the onus that lies upon those who make allegations of mala fides on the part of authorities have discharged their burden of proving it. In the absence of such affidavits or of materials placed before the Court by these authorities, the Court is left to judge of the veracity of the allegations merely on tests of probability with nothing more substantial by way of answer. According to us, Shri Arjun Singh owes an explanation to the Nation to to show at what cost he has acquired and built his mansion at Kerva Dam and from where and how he got the funds for that purpose. We are not accepting all the averments of the Petitioner to be true but Shri Arjun Singh has to clear the cloud in public interest in order to cleanse the atmosphere which is vitiated and polluted according to his very first statement in the Vidhan Sabha 28 years back. 42. We therefore, allow the petition and quash the order of the Collector dated 10-4-1987 condoning defaults, the exemption granted under Section 28 of the Lottery Act to Churhat Society for payment of tax by the Chief Minister on 15-5-1987 and by the Cabinet on 10-5-1988 as being without application of mind, and declare that Churhat Society was granted a licence to hold only one draw for a private lottery under Section 6 but Churhat Society unlawfully held 11 more draws, Churhat Society and the organising agent to furnish complete accounts of its 12 draws including the profits earned and unclaimed prizes retained by the agent and the taxes payable, the full particulars of the prize winners of prizes of Rs. 10,000/- and above and their mode of payments. 10,000/- and above and their mode of payments. An enquiry be made by an independent high power agency into the affairs of Churhat Society and how the share of its profits derived from the draws have been utilized and to take such action as may be required under the law against Churhat Society and its organising agent. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the Petitioner. Per Suryavanshi, J. 43. I had the advantage of reading the orders by learned brother Judge who has taken great pains to cover all necessary details. Paras 2 and 3 preface essential facts, which are either admitted or undisputed, paras 4 to 5 detail Petitioner's case and paras 6 to 9, in extenso, to the avernments in Returns. Paras 14 to 14 (a) to (e) deal with the relevant provisions of law preceding the discussion of factual matrix followed by observations and conclusions with which I entirely concur. Therefore, restating them would be an exercise in repetition. I would, therefore, crib and confine to focus on certain extraordinary features and aspects involved in the petition. 44. In the final analysis, the ultimate decisions were around the pivotal question: Whether this is a case of a license granted by Collector for a private Lottery as envisaged, in particular, under Section 7 of the Lottery Act and Rules, as is principally contended on behalf of the Petitioner,OR It is a Lottery "Specially authorised by the State Government" under Section 30(b), so as to absolve or immunise it totally from the regulatory net work of the Lottery Act and Rules-as is the rival contention. 45. Pausing here, I may briefly mention some contentions canvassed as preliminary objections. The thrust of these arguments is that Petitioner has no locus standi, that, it is "politically motivated with malice", "to settle political scores" and is of a nature which could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction, that Petitioner is personally not the affected or aggrieved person, that he has not come with clean hands, that it is belated and also barred on principle of res judicata, that it also suffer from the vice of misjoinder and as no relief is claimed against Shri Arjun Singh, he is an unnecessary party dragged in for political vendetta and political rivalries, that there arc other alternative and effective statutory remedies. We find it difficult to pursuade ourselves to accept those submissions. 46. (i) Locus standi-To what has been stated by the learned brother Judge and the case-law, I would add and emphasise that the recent trends on the subject have undergone great developments and the Supreme Court has preferred to take a "broad view" of this concept. In S. P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors. (supra), Shri Bhagwati, J., quoted with approval, the following passage from Lord Diplock's judgment (in Inland Rev. Commissioner's case): It would, in my view, be a grave lacuna in our system of public law, if a pressure group, like the federation, or even a single public spirited tax-payer were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the Court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped.... It is not, in my view, a sufficient answer to say that judicial review of the actions of officers or departments of central government is unnecessary because they are accountable to Parliament for the way they carry on their functions. They are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy and of that Parliament is the only Judge, they are responsible to a Court of Justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the Court is the only Judge. (ii) Shri Gupta, J., Shri Pathak, J. (as he then was), and Shri Desai, J., agreed with Shri Bhagwati, J. and so did Shri Tulzapurkar, J., although he discussed the topic briefly by reference to decisions of Supreme Court. (iii) In Dabholkars case AIR 1976 SC 242 Shri Krishna Iyer, J., quoting a passage from the judgment of Lord Denning in Att. Gen. of Gambia v. N' Jia pleaded for a need to take a "wider view" of locus standi in P.I.L. Shri Bhagwati, J., quoting observations from Prof. Thios Book on "Locus standi and Judicial Review" observed, the correct view of judicial function was that it is: Primarily aimed at preserving legal order by confining the legialature and executive organs of government within their powers in the interest of public...... This view rests in the theory that the Courts are the final arbiter of that is legal and illegal.... This view rests in the theory that the Courts are the final arbiter of that is legal and illegal.... Requirements of focus standi are, therefore, unnecessary in this case since they merely impede the purpose of the function as conceived here. N.M. Seerwai, in his classic work "Constitutional Law of India" III Edn. Vov. II, at page 1520, observes: What the 'broad view' of locus standi in P. I. L. taken by Lord Dip-lock and adopted by Bhagwati, J. is even more neceasary in India than it is in England because the occasions for abuse of power are vastly greater in India than in England. 47. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, what do we find here? True, the Petitioner incidentally belongs to a rival party. He has been Ex-C. M. Throughout he has been M L.A. and presently he is leader of opposition. In England, "Her Majesty's Leader of opposition" arose out of conventions, till statutory recognition in 1937, whereas, in Indian democracy, Leader of opposition holds a constitutional status. The Petitioner certainly has political roots and moorings and the petition has come political comlexion in the sense stated by the learned brother Judge. But even any public spirited citizen for that matter (of course with precise materials as placed in this case) could have invoked this Court and, therefore, the political moorings of this Petitioner cannot be disentitlement to move this petition. Agreeing with the brother Judge, it seems that the Petitioner has no personal axe to grind (malice) against the Respondent-Shri Arjun Singh. According to the learned councal, Shri Jain, the Petitioner, at its best, could be said, and rightly so, to have been placed in an advantageous position vis-a-vis as ordinary citizen, and, therefore, had 'access' to certain documents. The rival contention, that Petitioner without disclosing how he got those documents, produced them in Court and, therefore, has not come "with clean hands" is hardly a criticism worth consideration; so also the alleged "misuse of power/ position" flowing from it. The boot is on the other leg, as observed by learned brother Judge, it is the State which, under the veil of 'privilege' has been fighting why to place all the cards on the table. 48. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Petitioner did not purchase any lottery ticket. The boot is on the other leg, as observed by learned brother Judge, it is the State which, under the veil of 'privilege' has been fighting why to place all the cards on the table. 48. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Petitioner did not purchase any lottery ticket. But, on that count, he cannot be a person "not interested" in this P. I. L. The learned Advocate General, as also learned Counsel Shri Singhvi strenuously argued that in a flood of petitions under the mask of P. I. L. the motives are "scandle mongering". fishing expeditions", "sensationally false accusations for press and publicity though resulting in "character assassination". High dignatories-live in glass houses. The higher the position-stronger the temptations for certain elements to throw stones. Such are the so-called "Busy bodies". The Supreme Court, time and again, has sounded a note of caution and if I may put it, these are red-lettered cautions and guidelines for the exercise of writ jurisdiction. There is need for restraint and circumpection. Eriskin May, in "Parliamentary Practice" Twentieth Edn. at page 252, about "The official oppositon", observed, that "The importance of the opposition in the system of parliamentary government has long received practical recognition..." In the classic work, "Parliament", Sir Ivor Jennings (Second Edn. Chapter VI) deals with topics, viz. "The technique of opposition, the purposes of opposition, the methods of opposition". "Parliamentary questions and debates are only the instruments". The author further observes, "The Government tends to regard the opposition as the brake on a car going uphill, whereas the opposition thinks that the car is going downhill". According to the Respondents' counsel, the motive is to see the down-fall of the (ruling parties) government. All I wish to emphasise is that the Petitioner has no personal malice; he holds a certain responsible and dignified status and position; be quote the expressions of Krishna Iyer, J. Fertilizer Corp'. Kamgar Union's case AIR 1981 SC 344 , he has "special interest in the subject matter", he has "some concern deeper than that of a Busy Body"; and has indeed raised substantial questions of law for "Court's adjudication in public interest". This is certainly not a petition founded solely on hearsay, or surmrises or 'newspaper cuttings' wherein the authores are unknown and/or may be irresponsible being not subjected to file affidavits about sources of information. This is certainly not a petition founded solely on hearsay, or surmrises or 'newspaper cuttings' wherein the authores are unknown and/or may be irresponsible being not subjected to file affidavits about sources of information. The purpose of this petition is to highlight and seek relief in public interest in respect of loss of crore of rupees to public exchequer. We are of the view that the totality of facts, this Court is well within the parameteres and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court -I may call it, Laxmanrekhas and according to the request of the Respondents to reject the petition on preliminary grounds would tantamount to throwing away the baby with dirty tube-water, if at all there is any,-merely on the ground that the Petitioner happens to be a politician. 49. Apropos other preliminary objections, namely, res judicata, I agree with the conclusions that they are devoid of merit. In fact, the press media so-called rightly the Fourth Estate in a democracy (of course no sympathies for yellow journalism) ventilated the opinion and/or expressed dubious situations, complaints poured in; the corridors of the Assembly and Parliament were filled with echoes of this controversy but as referred by learned brother Judge, "nothing came out". It was "much cry, but no wool". The oscillating stand taken at different stages was that full prizes could not be yet given because of I. T. raids and seizures of tickets. What the Petitioner has challenged in the petition is adjudication on all illegalities relating to Raffles held under the licence, which as per his allegations, were due to "influence", "nepotism", "undue favours", "misuse of power" and "position", resulting in loss of crores of rupees to the public exchequer. Therefore, I agree with the brother Judge that the objections relating to locus standi, delay and political motivation are baseless. Apropos alternative remedies, as observed in Ram and Shyam AIR 1985 SC 1147 , "it is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law". The learned brother Judge has already discussed how the Petitioner's efforts in other forums have not been result-oriented. Moreover, legal questions regarding the points involved have to be adjudicated by the Court. It is argued that actions taken so far have been abortive or only an "eye-wash". The questions regarding res judicata have already been dealt with by the learned brother Judge and do not call further discussion. 50. Moreover, legal questions regarding the points involved have to be adjudicated by the Court. It is argued that actions taken so far have been abortive or only an "eye-wash". The questions regarding res judicata have already been dealt with by the learned brother Judge and do not call further discussion. 50. Allegations of nepotism, favouritism, undue influence and misuse/ abuse of position or power, i. e. arbitrariness and violiation of rule of law. Even at some risk of repetition, I would say that these objections were unsuccessfully attempted to be repelled by submissions, namely, that Shri Arjun Singh (one of the principle actors in the scenero, according to the Petitioner) has no art or part in the grant of license-and it was even argued that his name be deleted. According to the learned Counsel, Shri Jain, these are all matters of inferences to be drawn from proved circumstances if found credible by the Court. The further contention is that ordinarily in such cases no direct evidence is expected or would be available. To drive home this submission, Pratap Singh Kairo v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 , paras 10 and 14 was referred. It was observed: The Constitution enshrines and guarantees the rule of law and Article 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the Government acts bona fide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when Court is satisfied that there is abuse or misuse of power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual.... (Para 14 dealt with affidavit filed by the Secretary and absence of affidavit by C. M. when, in fact, allegations were personal and there was acceptable evidence not countered by documentary evidence and affidavit by C. M. 51. Those submissions are three-fold. Firstly: when licence was granted, secondly, when benefits were availed of, thirdly, the aftermath. Apropos the first stage, I may reiterate, first, that Shri Arjun Singh was elected from Churhat constituency in June 1980 and was naturally expected, human nature and course of conduct being what it is, to be keen-if not actively enthusiastic, about the progress and developments and engaged in "nursing the constituency". Apropos the first stage, I may reiterate, first, that Shri Arjun Singh was elected from Churhat constituency in June 1980 and was naturally expected, human nature and course of conduct being what it is, to be keen-if not actively enthusiastic, about the progress and developments and engaged in "nursing the constituency". Secondly, what would strike any one is that this Society saw the light of the day on 19-1-1982; Shri Arjun Singh was in the helm of affairs (as C. M.) from June 1980 till 12-3-1985. When Maharaja Martandsingh wrote to Secretary (December 1983), he was C. M. (Refer-averments in para 11 of the petition-not denied in joint return, nor by separate affidavit by Shri Arjun Singh.) Thirdly, it is not denied that out of Five members on the Governing Body, which entirely managed the affairs of the Society, three members, Sarvashri Ajay Singh, Dr. Sajjan Singh and B.P. Singh are, respectively, the son, brother and son-in-law of Shri Arjun Singh. The fourth, Shri S. P. Singh, is also a relation, and the fifth-Maharaja Martandsingh, had close links of heritage (not denied). And the General Body consisted of only three others, besides, those five, total eight. Fourthly, para 11 of the petition-relating to averments of Shri Arjun Singh's admission in Parliament about initial conception and formation of Society, are not denied. In all this context, would it be reasonable to infer that Shri Arjun Singh knew nothing about such application for Lottery or was not apprised by close relations ? To hold that he did not know because file was never actually put up before him, would be accepting a view that "right hand does not know what the left hand is doing". "Timing" of an application for permission was when Shri Arjun Singh was C. M. It may be a coincidence, but it is strange interiguing. We are also not suggesting that relations of any such a dignitary when in office should stop their activities, political, social or professional. But things have to be done in a manner, which appear fair, just, reasonable and absove-board conforming to certain code of conduct (may be self imposed) and certainly not surruptiously done, or shrouded with suspicious 52. Apropos the second stage, the information (Annexure-E) from the Director addressed to F. S. of Government of M. P , pertaining to Rajya Sabha question, read with extracts from the Audit Report (Annexure-H Annex. Apropos the second stage, the information (Annexure-E) from the Director addressed to F. S. of Government of M. P , pertaining to Rajya Sabha question, read with extracts from the Audit Report (Annexure-H Annex. R-7) furnish a total indictment and is a sad essay on the affairs of the Society. They show the skeletons found in cupboards. This Society has extremely modest assets, i. e. on Rs. 3,853/- in the Bank, which swalled to Rs. 1,50,000/- as donation by Union Carbide (of course, this was before Gas Tragedy), yet, it conceived and embarked, on all rapidity, on an ambitious Himalayan project of crores. No comments on receiving donations, because they ostensibly appeared to be for a good cause. Similarly, persons and societies do have humble origins to start with-like our Narmada, almost a trickle of water in the source at Amarkantak, but in its vast expanse ultimately merging in the seas. But the most extraordinary feature here is, that after getting the license, it galloped and sky was the limit. Nobody ever dreamt of those whitering heights. 53. Private Lottery-versus-specially authorised Lottery by Government: To reiterate what brother Judge has concluded-this is a case of private lottery for the following reasons: (i) President (Maharaja) (vide R-3) sent letter (undated Ann -3), seeking permission to organize a Raffle/Lottery (as per conditions laid down by the Government) and even slated that on hearing form Government the Society will appoint agents-that Rev. Mother Teresa has laid foundation about a year ago. But (vide Ann-A-2), the F. S in his letter dated 16-12-1983 to the Collector only stated that the Government has "no objection", and further made abundantly clear and certain that under Section 7 of the Lottery Adhiniyam, 1973, it is granted the by Collector; hence, when so applied, it be granted to Society. In the letter dated 16-12-1983 (Annex. R-1-4) the same F. S. wrote to the Chairman of the Society that "Government have agreed to permit you to hold lottery/raffle for the benefit of children.... We did not receive the details as mentioned in your above letter, we presume that the lottery/raffle would be used for the benefit of children and physically handicapped..."We are enclosing a copy of the letter to the Collector, Sidhi, to "permit" you to hold this lottery. We did not receive the details as mentioned in your above letter, we presume that the lottery/raffle would be used for the benefit of children and physically handicapped..."We are enclosing a copy of the letter to the Collector, Sidhi, to "permit" you to hold this lottery. As the Collector is the authority to grant you permission...we request you to apply to (Collector) him giving the details of the lottery to be conducted by you." (Emphasis added). (ii) On 29-12-1883, Shri Arjun Singh applied to the Collector and referring to F. S. letter endorsed to the Collector, wrote that our society has been "permitted" by the Government to hold lottery/raffle. Enclosed was information in Form B and the Collector also in the prescribed form under Form D of the Lottery Rules granted lincence which clearly mentioned the statutory conditions therein. (ii) From the above, it is transparently clear that the Government conveyed 'no objection' or 'permission' for a licence to be granted by the Collector, Sidhi, as per Section 7 and other provisions under the Lottery Act/Rules and the Collector also granted it. Here, and every where any reference to Section 30 (b) (specially authorised lottery) is conspicuously absent, Ann. B dated 13-11-84, by the Collector sent to the Secretary also mentions about licence granted for a 'Private Lottery'-and further points out that sample of ticket not shown, date of draw not submitted, also called upon to stop any further draws, and lastly to furnish all the information required. (iv) The learned brother Judge has highlighted the fact that the plea taken up by the State now vis-a-vis earlier stand is shear afterthought and volte-face. Why this ? The learned Advocate General argued that non-mention or an erroneous reference to the Section is inconsequential and when there is power and source, it could be traced out, it could be held that the sanction was under Section 30 (b), and not under Section 7 of the Lottery Act/Rules. The submissions to this effect, with respect, we find entirely misconceived, and misplaced, and case-law referred on this topic is distinguishable. (v) Collector under Section 9 has power to suspend or cancel the licence for breach of conditions. The submissions to this effect, with respect, we find entirely misconceived, and misplaced, and case-law referred on this topic is distinguishable. (v) Collector under Section 9 has power to suspend or cancel the licence for breach of conditions. He unequivocally called for a halt for further Draw-but even after the orders dated 13-11 1984, the Society cared two boots and held field day, in all further organising Seven Mini Draws and two other Draws (total Nine), and significantly enough in Eight Draws the prices of tickets were Rs. 20/- each. The authorities seem mesmerized and remained dumb and silent spectators. (vi) A nothing in the file shows that vide letter dated 26-5-1984 some Sudarshan Sheets Corporation-Mandurwar- Maharashtra-sent a qurry, stating that there is a boom in the sale of tickets and on the back of the ticket it is printed "subject to the M.P. State Administration Finance Deptt. 1125/F. S./83". They wanted to know whether it is a fraud to be stopped ? For reasons best known, it was proposed that it is unnecessary to reply the quaere and on 21-6-1984, there were final orders to FILE it. This is a specimen of how because of power, influence and position of the Respondent Shri Arjun Singh, the matter was treated so casually or callously by authorities. (vii) The Vidhan Sabha proceedings, produced after the case was closed, at pages 72 and 78 shows that permission was only for ONE DRAW. From the entire correspondence also, this can be spelt out. Because everywhere the expression "A Raffle/Lottery", i. e. singular form, had been used. Yet, there had been eleven harvests of Draws after the permitted one Draw. 54. What the promoters could not have done under the law/rules directly, they could not have done that indirectly, by appointing an Agent. The submission, I may call it a myth, that the Society earned a "guaranteed profit of one crore", ignores the probability that this maybe only at the surface so far as Society is concerned, but the iceberge of loss of crores of Rupees of income to the State go to the promoters and Agent unnoticed and unaccounted for. The learned Counsel, Shri Tamaskar, for the Respondent, Shri Vora, supported the Advocate-General to the extent that the petition is politically motivated, but stated that this lottery was under Section 7. The learned Counsel, Shri Tamaskar, for the Respondent, Shri Vora, supported the Advocate-General to the extent that the petition is politically motivated, but stated that this lottery was under Section 7. Shri Tamaskar urged that where is the order under Section 30 (b) by the State Government. Because as held in L. G. Choudhary v. Govt, of Bihar AIR 1980 SC P. 383, Article 166 is "directory" and in the absence of a formal order in terms of Article 166, it was open to prove aliunde that such order existed. State of Rajasthan v. Shripal Jain AIR 1963 SC 1323 , was also referred to show that defect of form would not make such order illegal, but the burden is on the Government to show that such order was in fact passed. Certainly, F. S. 's letter, in itself, it is argued, is not an order in the name of the Governor. The learned Advocate General, citing Nandlal's case AIR 1967 SC p stated that no particular form is prescribed, but then, as replied by the learned Counsel, in Nandlal's case, the distillers were not related. 55. According to Shri Tamaskar, Shri Vora passed the order of exemption in anticipation of council's approval which would have been a decision by corporate body but in no way he had favoured Shri Arjun Singh or organizers/promoters of Lottery; who are his (Shri Arjun Singh's) relations. In our view, Shri Vora was not even remotely concerned with this lottery. In any case, he was not a person to be monetarily benefitted by such shady and candalous transaction. 56. The learned Counsel, Shri Jain, concluded saying that the Petitioner has demonstrated that a "blanket licence" was issued to Churhat Society by the then Collector, Sidhi, without any application of mind whatsoever, which could be contributed to the obliqe reasons mentioned in the petition. Subsequent breaches were not only deliberately or under manupulation or influence ignored, but, to cap it all, all the contraventions and consequences that could follow, were given a ceremonial burial by "condonation orders". Arbitrariness, mala fides, influence, misuse of position are writ large. Colossal loss of crores to the public exchequer is obvious. Subsequent breaches were not only deliberately or under manupulation or influence ignored, but, to cap it all, all the contraventions and consequences that could follow, were given a ceremonial burial by "condonation orders". Arbitrariness, mala fides, influence, misuse of position are writ large. Colossal loss of crores to the public exchequer is obvious. In view of the aforesaid discussion and agreeing with the directions in the penultimate para of the orders by Shri Sen,J., I am of the view that a thorough enquiry by an independent agency is necessary not only to clean the stables, but also to maintain the rule of law that no person or official is above law. 57. Lastly, before parting with this petition, we are constrained to observe certain anamolies and lacuna in the penal provisions of this Lottery Adhiniyam, 1973. Sub-section (3) Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 6 provide the penalties for breaches of any of the conditions specified in Sub-section (2). For the first and second offence, punishments provided are fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 2000/-, respectively. Subsequent offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or fine, which may extend to Rs. 5000/ or both. Then the Section 14 provides penalty for failure to keep accounts, submit statements, or for keeping and submitting false accounts. If any lesson is to be drawn from this case, those are serious breaches because the turnovers of Raffles/Lotteries range in lacs or even crores, yet such breaches are punishable with a paltry fine of Rs. 500/- only. The Legislature has certainly taken a note of phenomenal rise in the field of economic offences which led to amendments in penal provisions in various other Acts. Penology is one of the difficult and complex part of legal jurisprudence and administration of Justice. May be, even a token fine of a Rupee leading to loss of face or reputation in Society might have salutary effect on a particular offender. But a mass of offenders might be tempted to commit those breaches and get away with a risk of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- only, if at all caught in the net of law. Such "Fly-bite" sentences of fines are likely to provide temptations to commit breaches, instead of serving as deterrants. But a mass of offenders might be tempted to commit those breaches and get away with a risk of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- only, if at all caught in the net of law. Such "Fly-bite" sentences of fines are likely to provide temptations to commit breaches, instead of serving as deterrants. All the more so, because there are no provisions in this special Act for forfeiture or 3 of ill-gotten property obtained from illegal lottery transactions. We are, therefore, of the view, that the existing penal provisions deserve to be examined in that perspective for such amendments as be deemed proper.