JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.: These two writ petitions have been dealt with together since the same involve identical questions for adjudication and also for the reason that the learned counsel appearing on either side submitted common arguments. 2. CWP No. 410/98 has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the respondent- State dated 28.10.1997 filed as Annexure P-2 and for consequential direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to do his business as if the order dated 28.10.1997 has never been passed. The order dated 28.10.1997 passed by the Directorate of State Lotteries of the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to all the Deputy Commissioner/Superintendents of Police in the State reads as follows: "It has been reported that lottery tickets of the State of Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Royal Government of Bhutan are being sold in Himachal Pradesh. There is no permission for selling such lotteries currently being sold by these States. You are, therefore, requested to please take action against the stockiest / retailers who are stocking/selling the lottery tickets in, the name of these States in Himachal Pradesh. Copy of the Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance, 1997 promulgated by- Government of India on 1st October, 1997 is enclosed for your information. 3. The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of lottery tickets in the State of Himachal Pradesh, as an agent and claims to have been purchasing and selling such lottery tickets of the State of Nagaland. Reference is made to the promulgation of the Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance, 1997 by the President on 1.10.1997, the Lotteries (Regulation) second Ordinance, 1997 on 30th December, 1997 as also the Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998 on 23rd April, 1998 and the communication of the Ordinance of the year 1997 as well as the proceeding dated 28.10.1997, challenged in the present writ petition and complaining that such proceeding has been issued without any authority of law and also against the action of the respective Deputy Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police restraining the petitioner from selling the tickets in question. A reference is also made to the communication dated 7.11.1997 to the respondent herein of the Directorate of State" Lotteries of the Government of Nagaland with camp office at New Delhi that the High court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalays, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh at Guwahati as on 13.10.1997 granted stay and, therefore, the Directorate of Nagaland is entitled to market their lottery tickets in the State of Himachal Pradesh with a request to ensure the smooth marketing and sale of the lottery tickets of Nagaland in the State of Himachal Pradesh without any interference and hindrances. Further reference is also made to a representation by the Lottery tickets sellers of Himachal Pradesh to the respondent stating that by a letter dated 28.8.1995, permission was granted to sell the lotteries of the State of Manipur, Goa, Maghalaya, Haryana, Kerala, Nagaland, Sikkim and Royal Government of Bhutan in the State of Himachal Pradesh and inspite of the same restraints and impediments are put on them for selling the above stated lottery tickets making also a request therein for communicating the orders, if any, prohibiting in the State of Himachal Pradesh the sale of such lottery tickets. The action under challenge is stated to be in violation of Articles 19(l)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India for the reason that the petitioner being a citizen has claimed to be entitled to deal with in the business of the lottery tickets without any unlawful restraints. It is also stated by the petitioners that the State of Himachal Pradesh itself is running its own lottery almost on the same and ""similar pattern and being a business contender in order to promote their own business, the proceeding filed as Annexure P-2 has been issued and since till date, there is no prohibitory order issued by the respondent-State regarding the sale of tickets of Nagaland State Lottery not only it is not permissible for the respondent to impose any restrictions or restraints by the order under challenge but it would also amount to contempt of the stay orders granted by the Guwahati High Court The action under challenge is said to be also illegal, arbitrary and opposed to principle of natural justice in addition to being unfair and unjust. Initially, notice has been ordered with a direction to file a reply within a week and since no reply was filed within the stipulated time in CMP No. 802/98 by order dated 19.7.1998 stay of the operation of Annexure P-2 till the final disposal of the writ petition came to be granted by a Division Bench of this Court, subsequently on 20.7.1998 the respondent-State has filed a reply-statement enclosing Annexure R-l to R-6 to the same. 4. In the reply filed by the State, a reference is made to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.4.1996 in CWPNo.4of 1995 directing the respondent-State not to allow the sale of single digit lottery organized by any State including the State of Himachal Pradesh in the entire state and, therefore, the State has banned the sale of single digit lottery within the State and the petitioner cannot seek indulgence by placing reliance on the interim directions of the Guwahati High Court made on 13.10.1997. The respondents have narrated the details relating to the issue of the Ordinances as also the passing of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act No.17 of 1998) published in the Gazette of India on 7.7.1998 and the said Act is state to have incorporated the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India and on that basis contended that the sale of the lottery tickets in question by the petitioner within the State of Himachal Pradesh is illegal and unlawful. Reliance is also placed upon the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10.7.1996 wherein the lotteries run by the States of Nagaland, Assam, Mizoram and Manipur are held not to be State run lotteries and that it is the sole Distributor who is running the show without the involvement of the Government. Reliance is also placed upon the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10.7.1996 wherein the lotteries run by the States of Nagaland, Assam, Mizoram and Manipur are held not to be State run lotteries and that it is the sole Distributor who is running the show without the involvement of the Government. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is also stated to have noticed the fact that the Nagaland Government is only getting a fixed percentage of commission of the total business, which can be termed as royalty and that, therefore, according to the respondent- State, the lotteries run by the State of Nagaland do not conform to the guidelines issued by the Honble Supreme Court of Indian as well as the conditions, stipulated in the 1998 Act and consequently the sale of such lottery tickets within the State of Himachal Pradesh is illegal, unlawful and unauthorised. A reference is also made to CWP No. 171 of 1998 said to be pending separately in this Court on identical issue, which it may be noticed came to be dismissed as withdrawn, later. While traversing the claims of challenge made to the order dated 28.10.1997, the respondent- State contended that the said letter has been issued by virtue of the powers vested in the State under Section 5 of Ordinance No.20 of 1997 and the same has been issued for the reason that no permission to sell the lottery tickets of the State of Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Royal Government of Bhutan has been granted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, as envisaged by the order of apex Court dated 21.4.1994 in Civil Appeal No. 2349-51/1994. Justification for the impugned proceedings dated 21.10.1997 is made by reiterating the stand that the lottery tickets in the name of Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Royal Government of Bhutan are not that of the Stale run lotteries in terms of the orders of the Apex Court as observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and, therefore, the respondent - State cannot permit anybody to run unlawful and illegal business in such lotteries in the respondent-State. The interim order said to have been granted by the Guwahati High Court on 13.10.1997 is said to be not sufficient to claim any rights in this writ petition by the petitioner in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court and that of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as that of this court Adverting to the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court envisages permission to be obtained by any State, which organises the lottery from the State in which their tickets are to be sold also, it is contended that no lottery tickets can be sold without permission of the State of which the tickets are to be sold. It is also contended that the mere fact that representations have been filed will not give any immunity to the petitioner or anybody similarly placed to pursue their illegal and unlawful activities of selling tickets of unauthorised-lotteries within the State and that the power of the State to prevent such unauthorised and unlawful acts within the State cannot be questioned. The petitioner is said to be not entitled to any fundamental right to do any such business as claimed. Adverting to the permission said to have been earlier granted, the respondent-State, that only 10 lottery scheme were earlier allowed to be sold in Himachal Pradesh as on 13.10.1995 and out of these, 9 lotteries were single digit lotteries permission in respect of which came to be withdrawn if terms of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17.4.1996 by the Government in the order dated 25.4.1996 and that the petitioner, who is merely a private party cannot claim to have any right to carry on the business of lotteries. The petitioner was said to have not been able to get aurhotisation to run the business or file this petition from the State on whose behalf the relief in the writ petition is being sought and: therefore, the petitioner has no locus to vindicate the right of the State Government concerned and consequently it is stated for the respondent that no comparison can be made between the lotteries organized by the State of Himachal Pradesh and those organized by the State of Nagaland or any other State run lotteries. The powers are claimed by the respondent to issue the order or restrain any unlawful trade being carried on as part of its powers to maintain law and order in the State and since the State of Nagaland had the occasion to satisfy the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that the lotteries in question are organized by their State but has failed to do so, it is not given to the petitioner to assert and claim his rights before this Court on behalf of the state of Nagaland. The petitioner is said to be not entitled to claim any legal right or fundamental right to earn his livelihood by the sale of lottery tickets, which do not conform to the guidelines laid by the apex Court as also by Section 4 of the Ordinance since replaced by the Act. The petitioner was said to be not entitled to claim any rights on the basis of an order said to have been passed by the Guwahati High Court in a proceeding to which the respondent-State was not a party and when such orders cannot have any force in the State. The State of Himachal Pradesh was said to have been fully satisfied }[ that the lottery tickets in question purporting to be that of Nagaland are not of State run lotteries and, therefore, the impugned order is said to be quite in accordance with law and unassailable. 5. So far as the C.W.P. No. 482/98 is concerned, the petitioner, who .claims to be a citizen of India and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of lottery tickets in this State as an agent setting the lottery tickets of the State of Nagaland seeks for the relief to quash as in the other writ petition, the orders of the respondent-State dated 28.10.1991 and also for consequential directions to the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to do his business treating as if the order under challenge has never been issued. It may be stated at this stage that the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in this writ petition are almost identical and similar to those raised in the other writ petition and except making the position clear, there is no need for repeating the same once over again. It may be stated at this stage that the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in this writ petition are almost identical and similar to those raised in the other writ petition and except making the position clear, there is no need for repeating the same once over again. So far as this writ petition is concerned, no interim order as such has been granted, but the main writ petition as also the petition for stay was ordered to be posted together for hearing along with the other writ petition filed and pending in CWP No. 171 of 1998 which since has been withdrawn and 410 of 1998. 6. The respondent-State has filed a reply almost on identical and similar lines to the one filed on the other writ petition. It has been also stated in addition that the respondent reserves the right to exercise statutory powers to have vested in it under the Lottery (Regulation) Act, 1998. The lotteries marketed by the State of Nagaland include single digit lotteries also, which have been banned not only by this Court, but also by the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, which cannot be permitted to be done within the State. The locus standi of the petitioner is also questioned and it is also contended that the petitioner has no legal cause of action to maintain the writ petition. To answer the claim about the permission said to have been granted on 28.8.1995 as made in the representation, the learned Advocate General while making available the proceedings recording the minutes of the meeting pointed out that items No. 1 to 9 put of the 10 so earlier permitted relate to digital lotteries, which is not permissible to be allowed to be carried on in the State both by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench noticed earlier and also the Ordinance and the Act in question and the 10th lottery was said to have been abandoned also. On behalf of the State, proceedings of the meeting held on 25.10.1997 was also made availabe in which the various stockings of lotteries at Shimla were present when it was made clear that there was no permission for the sale of lottery tickets currently sold by the States of Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Royal Government of Bhutan within the State of Himachal Pradesh and the sale of the lottery tickets without permission will constitute violation of Lottery (Regulation) Ordinance and the Act and that the stockists and sellers have also agreed to stop the sale of the said lotteries and cooperate with the Government and apparently in the teeth of the said outcome of die meeting, the impugned circular orders came to be issued. The cuttings from the Newspaper of public notice by the Directorate of Punjab State Lotteries, Chandigarh that the sale and purchase of Nagaland State Lotteries cannot be made in the State of Punjab in view of the bah orders, which would be in force and the orders said to have been passed by the Guwahati High Court will have no effect on the ban orders, have been produced with other similar paper cuttings connecting the lottery agents of Nagaland in those States with militant groups and the reference to the proceedings in the High Court of Delhi in respect of such claims. Since in other respect. the same and identical stand as taken in CWP No. 410 of 1998 has been taken here also, the repetition of the same once over again has been avoided for the sake of brevity. 7. The learned counsel appearing on either side have reiterated the stand taken for them in the pleadings to which a reference hat been made in detail supra. 4(a) We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In out view, it would be appropriate to initially refer to some of the guiding principles of law emanating from the statutory provisions as also the judgments relied upon before us. 4(a) We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In out view, it would be appropriate to initially refer to some of the guiding principles of law emanating from the statutory provisions as also the judgments relied upon before us. There is no dispute over the fact mat in CWP No. 4/95 and CWP No. 441/95, which were entertained by this Court on its own motion, the legality, propriety and the permissibility of selling tickets pertaining to single digit lotteries came up for consideration and a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 17.4.1996 to which one of us (Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.) was a party held that the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, State of Himachal Pradesh, and the other respondents not to allow the sale of the single digit lotteries organized by" the Himachal Pradesh or any other State in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh is justified and necessitated. As a matter of fact in pursuance of the said orders of this Court, a notification dated 2S.4.1996 came to be issued prohibition the sale of such single digit lottery tickets. A review application filed in Civil Review No. 38 of 1996 at the instance of the State of Nagaland also came to be dismissed on 27.9.1996. (b) The next decision that requires to be noticed is mat of Constitution Bench of the apex Court in State of Haryana v. M/s Suman Enterprises & Ors. 1994(4) SCC 217 rendered in the context of prohibition orders issued by the several "States in the country for selling lottery tickets of other States in their respective States. Their Lordships of the apex Court analysed the difference between the class and category of lotteries claimed to have been organized by the State Government and laid down the principles and characteristics, which could" alone entitle a particular lottery to be claimed to be organized by the . State in the following terms: "In the present case we have examined, prima facie, whether the lottery claimed to have been organised by the State of Sikkim can be said to be a merely authorised by it authorising the so called Agents them-selves to organise the lottery. State in the following terms: "In the present case we have examined, prima facie, whether the lottery claimed to have been organised by the State of Sikkim can be said to be a merely authorised by it authorising the so called Agents them-selves to organise the lottery. We have examined this in the context of the question whether the earlier interim order granted by this Court should continue or not till the final disposal of the main cases. Prima facie, it appears to us that the concept of a lottery organised by a State would require certain basic and essential concomitants to be satisfied as, indeed, members of the public when investing their money in such a lottery proceed on a trust and on certain assumptions as to the genuineness, bona fides, safety, security, the rectitude of administration etc. associated with Government functioning. if come of the basic function characterising a State - Organised lottery are delegated or abdicated by the State this public trust is impaired. The first of those requirements is that the tickets which bear the imprint and logo of the State must be printed by or directly at the instance of the State Government so as to ensure its authenticity and genuineness and further to ensure that any possibility of duplication of the tickets and sale of fake tickets is provided against and rendered impossible. Secondly, the State itself must sell the tickets though, if it thinks necessary or proper so to do, through a sole Distributor or selling Agent or several Agents or distributors under terms and conditions regulated by the agreement reached between the parties. The sale proceeds of the tickets either sold in retail or whole sale shall be credited to the funds of the Government. Thirdly, the draws for selecting the prize -winning tickets must be conducted by the State itself, irrespective of the size of the prize-money. The sale proceeds of the tickets either sold in retail or whole sale shall be credited to the funds of the Government. Thirdly, the draws for selecting the prize -winning tickets must be conducted by the State itself, irrespective of the size of the prize-money. Fourthly, if any prize money is unclaimed or is otherwise not distributed by way of prize, it must revert to and become the property of the State Government These, prima facie, appear to us to be the minimal characteristics of lottery which can claim to be organised by the State." It was further observed therein as hereunder: "While we appreciate the predicament of the State, we cannot also overlook the power of the State to regulate the sale of lottery tickets not organised by the Union or other States. If the State of Sikkim or any other state organises its lottery which satisfies the aforesaid essential features which can alone qualify a lottery as one organised by the State, it would quite obviously be outside the regulatory power of any other States under Entry 40 of List II and accordingly the prohibition would not apply. It is open to the State of Sikkim to involve an appropriate and acceptable scheme and if necessary seek the protection of its rights to sell the tickets under that scheme by an appropriate application before court" 8. While dealing with die prohibitory orders issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the course to be adopted by any State claiming its lottery to be one organised by that State to have the protection envisaged, their Lordship have held as follows : "The essential question is whether under the various scheme sponsored by the other States the lotteries can be said to be those organised by them, State as distinct from those merely authorised by them. In the course of our order made today in Tamil Nadu matters we have indicated - though as prima facie indication at the interlocutory stage - what prima facie appeals to us to be the minimal criteria which render a lottery to be eligible to be called one organised by a State. We do not propose to examine the details of the scheme of the various States referred to by the petitioner. We do not propose to examine the details of the scheme of the various States referred to by the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application before the State of Madhya Pradesh urging that the lotteries organised by the States referred to are Immune from the. State; regulatory power end that the petitioner is entitled to sell the tickets of the lotteries of these States in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State Government will examine the representation in the light of the criteria indicates in our order made today in Tamil Nadu matters and make appropriate order whether, in its opinion, the schemes of lotteries of the aforesaid States qualify for being reckoned as lotteries organised by those States. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Similar directions were given in respect of other States including the State of Bihar. (c) A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had en occasion to deal with similar issues in Civil Writ Petitions No 10155/95,10255/95 and 10254/95 filed by the very Government of Nagaland against the State of Punjab and others and Civil Writ Petition No. 10923/95 and by an order dated 10.7.1996, the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court undertook an elaborate consideration of the matter in the light of the governing principles taking note of the decision governing the subject in issue, as also the scheme of the lotteries devised by petitioning the State Governments and held that in sum and substance, it is the sole distributor, who is running the show without the involvement of the Government and, therefore, these lotteries cannot be said to be the State organised lotteries. At the expense of repetition, it may be pointed out that though this was in the context of a challenge made to die law orders of the Director of Punjab State Lotteries, the principles laid down therein would also be relevant for the purpose of appreciating the grievances of the petitioner of these writ petitions. 5. The statutory provisions governing the subject matter in issue may also now be adverted to. The President of India has issued Ordinance No. 6 of 1998 in continuation of the earlier Ordinance issued on 1.10.1997 and 30.12.1997 to regulate the lotteries and providing for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. 5. The statutory provisions governing the subject matter in issue may also now be adverted to. The President of India has issued Ordinance No. 6 of 1998 in continuation of the earlier Ordinance issued on 1.10.1997 and 30.12.1997 to regulate the lotteries and providing for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The said Ordinance came to be replaced by the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act No. 17 of 1998) which was deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 2.10.1997. Section 4 of the Act enumerated and stipulated the conditions subject to which lotteries may be organised by a State Government. Section 5 enables a State Government within its State to prohibit the sale of the tickets of lottery organised, conducted or promoted by every other States. A bare reading of the provisions of the Act would show that organising, conducting or promoting a lottery in contravention of the various clauses stipulated as conditions under Section 4 of the Act even by the State Government is illegal and punishable as an offence. The provisions of the Act clothe a State Government with powers to prohibit within its State the sale of tickets of lottery organised, conducted or promoted by every other States. In view of the above, if a State Government so desires it is entitled to prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted even by another State. At the same time as to what is and when it will constitute a State Government organised, conducted or promoted lottery has to be decided on verification of the scheme underlying and subject to which the particular lottery organised, conducted or promoted by the State Government, in the light of the conditions illustrated, under Section 4 and no one other than a State Governments can claim to organise, conduct or promote a lottery in the teeth of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. Section 3 of the Act prohibits that except otherwise provided in Section 4, no State Government shall organise, conduct or promote any lottery. Section 3 of the Act prohibits that except otherwise provided in Section 4, no State Government shall organise, conduct or promote any lottery. Apart from the powers of, the Slate Government conferred under Section 5 to prohibited or promoted by the every other States, even in the absence of any prohibitory orders as such passed by a particular State Government, in the Stats of Himachal Pradesh invoking the powers under Section 5 of the Act, in our view it is entitled to issue instructions or orders even on die administrative side to all the authorities of the State Government including the authorities concerned with enforcement of law and order to take appropriate action against such of the lotteries and the tickets concerning the same currently sold within the State of Himachal Pradesh, which were neither authorised nor so permitted. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners repeatedly made the submission with great vehmence that under the law as it stands even as proclaimed by the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, there is no necessity for a State Government to obtain permission for selling its lottery tickets in another State from the said other State and that, therefore, the State of Himachal Pradesh could not instruct the authorities of the administration and the police to take action for want of any prior permission from the Himachal State for selling such tickets. We are afraid, we can sustain this submission. Even dehors the provisions of the 1998 Act, their Lordships of the apex Court themselves have laid down the criteria and the provisions of the 1998 Act enacted by the Parliament would go to show that it was merely in carrying out the principles and characteristics of a State organised lottery which were laid down by the apex court, that the new Act came to be passed imposing certain further conditions also to make the exercise to be undertaken to find out the real nature and the character of the lottery concerned fruitful, efficient and effective. Consequently, if no State Government shall organise, conduct or permit any tottery except in a manner and subject to the term and conditions stipulated in Section 4 of the 1998 Act, it is not only appropriate but necessary and absolutely inevitable for any State Government, which intends to sell its tickets within the territories of another-State to convince the State authorities of that State where the tickets of the lottery of the other State are sought to be sold, that the lottery organised, conducted or promoted by the said Stated conforms to, fulfils and satisfies the statutory conditions stipulated in Section 4 of the Act and in that process even in the absence of a specific provision to seek any such permission or approval, a need for the same becomes inevitable and absolutely necessary too to ensure that there is no abuse or violation or misuse of the powers of the one State Government by allowing the tickets of lotteries permitted to be masquerated under the colour and authority of that State Government in contravention of the provisions of the Act by camouflaging and manipulating matters. It is in this context, apart from the need arising after 1998 Act by implication for a State Government to obtain the permission of the other State Government where the tickets are meant to be sold even in the absence of a positive order of prohibition or ban passed in exercise of Section of the Act, the directions given in similar circumstances even in the absence of a statutory provision like the 1998 Act by their Lordships of the apex Court in the decision reported in 1994 (4) SCC 217 assumes great significance and importance and we are of the view mat in the situation on hand also, it becomes necessary for every State Government which wants to sell its lottery tickets in another State to move the other State and satisfy the other States that its lotteries are in conformity with Section 4 of the Act, so that the particular State, which seeks to sell their tickets can claim protection to so sell in the other States, even in the absence of any prohibitory or ban orders issued under Section 5 of the Act The permission or approval in such cases to be obtained by one State from another State is not for organising, conducting or promoting a lottery by one particular Government, but to substantiate the credibility of the scheme of lottery organised by a particular State, the tickets of which are sought to be sold in another State, that such lottery conforms to and satisfies the statutory conditions stipulated in Section 4. Otherwise, it will not only lead to chaos and confusion but that anybody who is merely even running lotteries with the authorisation of the other State Government to use its name will be marketing by masquerated its tickets under the guise of the State organised, conducted or promoted lottery in gross violation of the provisions of the Act with impunity and will go even scot free before the damage on account of such misuse and abuse could be effectively curved or dealt with. Consequently, we set no merit whatsoever in the challenge made to the impugned orders or action of the State Government and its authorities in these cases. 11. Consequently, we set no merit whatsoever in the challenge made to the impugned orders or action of the State Government and its authorities in these cases. 11. Even otherwise, the factual details noticed in the earlier part of this order would go to show that the petitioners can have no right to step into the shoes of the Government of Nagaland to vindicate its rights, when the State Government had not chosen itself to challenge such action of the respondent-State Government. Merely because the petitioners are dealing with in the same lottery tickets which are claimed and alleged to be of the lotteries organised, conducted or promoted, without any positive proof thereof, the petitioners as such retail agents or sellers of such lottery tickets cannot claim to have the necessary locus or legal grievance to maintain these writ petitions. In our view, none of the legally protected rights of the petitioners could be said to be violated and so long it is not substantiated or properly proved by appropriate material that the lottery tickets of which the privilege to sell in this State is claimed is how to be a State organised, conducted and promoted lottery within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, which has not been even attempted to be done in this case by producing any material in this regard, the petitioners cannot claim to have any locus ^to maintain this writ petition, as rightly contended for by the Learned Advocate General. Not only in this case, in respect of so called lotteries said to be of Nagaland Stand, the said State Government has not come before this Court to challenge any proceeding or the action of the respondent-State, but in the teeth of the said State Government suffering an adverse order in the hands of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in-the judgment, noticed above, on the view so taken that the lotteries off Nagaland cannot be said to be State organised lotteries, there is no factual basis also for the petitioners to assert any contra claim before us, with no further convincing proof or materials to show that the lotteries in question conforms to the statutory stipulations and the conditions contained in Section 4 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. 12. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit whatsoever in the above writ petitions. 12. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit whatsoever in the above writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. The interim order passed on 10.7.1998 in CWP No. 802/98 shall stand vacated. No costs. Petition dismissed.