All the writ petitions mentioned above are similar in nature and involve similar point for a decision. All the petitioners are private parties and have challenged the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and notifications issued by various States prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets in those States. Notice of Motion was issued on the respective dates of moving the petitions. 2. In Civil Rule No.6654 of 1998 petitioner has challenged the notifications dated 7.10.97 and 19.3.98 issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi; notification dated 9.10.98 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh; notification dated 30.12.97 issued by the State of Karnataka; notification dated 1.12.97 issued by the State of Assam; notification dated 3.1.98 issued by the State of Gujrat and notification dated 26.6.98 issued by the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Regarding locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition, in para 1 of the writ petition it is stated on oath that the petitioner is a proprietorial firm of Shri Anurag Bansal presently doing his business at Imphal (Manipur) and prayed for striking down the above mentioned impugned notifications issued by the respective respondents States. But the affidavit has been sworn by one Shri Shyamlal Garg and has sworn the affidavit as the proprietor of the petitioner firm and the contents made in the petition (excluding paragraphs 6 and 16) are sworn as derived from his knowledge including para 1 of the petition. Apparently, petitioner is pot engaged ^ in lottery business and there is no statement on record that the petitioner firm is engaged in lottery business as agent, sub-agent of a particular State within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court merely on the ground that he is a resident of Imphal town and has a been doing business at Imphal. 3.1 hold that the petitioner Ganesh Enterprises has no locus standi to invoke this Court's writ jurisdiction when it has no lottery business as agent, sub-agent etc under the States within the jurisdiction of this Court, more so, when the lottery business is a State run business and only the aggrieved State can invoke the writ jurisdiction in such cases. However, an interim order was passed on 23.12.98 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to market and sell State organised lotteries. 4. Mr. However, an interim order was passed on 23.12.98 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to market and sell State organised lotteries. 4. Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior Central Govt Standing counsel submits that by suppressing the facts the petitioner obtained the interim order from this Court to sell State organised lottery tickets, when from the writ petition it appears that petitioner has no lottery business under any State of the North East under the jurisdiction of this Court. I also agree with Mr. Mahanta that filing of the writ petition and getting the interim order is an abuse of the process of the Court for which the writ petition be dismissed at admission stage. 5. In Civil Rule No. 6671 of 1998 the petitioner has challenged the order No. F(18) (C)/3/98/ E/IV dated 26.10.98 issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Bhopal. This notification was issued cancelling the operation and effect of orders dated 24.10.98 bearing Nos. 2670/Sanrala/98 and 2673/Sanrala/ 98 by which sale of Arunachal State Lottery tickets was allowed in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner's case is that petitioner entered into agreement with M/s NV Marketing Pvt Ltd (Annexure B to the writ petition) which is the agent of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Petitioner is the sub-agent under the said M/ s NV Marketing Pvt Ltd and is not in direct business relation with the State. To substantiate the locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition a Misc Case being No. 26 of 1999 was filed. However, as the petitioner did not press the application the same was dismissed. The State of Arunachal Pradesh has filed a separate writ petition challenging the provisions of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the same is pending. It is also submitted that the State of Arunachal Pradesh submitted application before the appropriate authority on 21.9.98 and permission was granted on 24.10.98 by the Director of State Lotteries, Madhya Pradesh (Annexure C). The State of Arunachal Pradesh has filed a separate writ petition challenging the provisions of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the same is pending. It is also submitted that the State of Arunachal Pradesh submitted application before the appropriate authority on 21.9.98 and permission was granted on 24.10.98 by the Director of State Lotteries, Madhya Pradesh (Annexure C). However, the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh raised question regarding the locus standi of the petitioner (para 4 of the MC No. 103 of 1999) to challenge the notification dialed 26.10.98 issued by the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh, as being a State organised business it is the State only who can be affected directly and petitioner as agent/sub-agent/distributor cannot challenge the impugned notification as the trade agreement of for such operation of business is applicable between the two States of the agreement. This respondent State has stated that the impugned notification is related to non supplying of information sought by the State of MP. 6. In view of the above discussion, the admitted position is that the petitioner is the agent under the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the lottery being a State organised lottery, by present petitioner cannot have any direct grievance as its right etc derived through the State of Arunachal Pradesh only. In such situation if the petitioner as agent has any grievance in selling lottery tickets within the jurisdiction of the respondent State/States the appropriate forum is the High Courts of the respondent State(s). Petitioner being a private party has challenged the Act as the distributor/agent of the State of Arunachal Pradesh when fact remains that State of Arunachal Pradesh has not filed any writ petition challenging the impugned notification and the application was filed on behalf of me petitioner in support of the case of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 7.1.99 (MG 26 of 1999). From the above discussion, I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition as agent/distributor of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 7. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 1999 petitioner firm has filed the writ petition stating the petitioner is a proprietorial firm of Shri Rakesh Roy who is a citizen of India and as such entitled to all the rights under the Constitution of India. 7. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 1999 petitioner firm has filed the writ petition stating the petitioner is a proprietorial firm of Shri Rakesh Roy who is a citizen of India and as such entitled to all the rights under the Constitution of India. In this writ petition petitioner claims constitutional rights and 6f privileges without mentioning its locus standi to invoke this Court's writ jurisdiction, like the petition in Civil Rule No. 6654 of 1998 and the petitioner has challenged the same notifica­tions and the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition on facts and law and this case is squarely covered by the decision taken in the above Civil Rule No. 6654 of 1998. 8. From the totality of all these three writ petitioners it is seen that Notice of Motion was issued on various dates with interim stay orders. Out of all the respondent States only the State of Madhya Pradesh. has filed affidavit-in-opposition and challenges the maintainability of these writ petitions. As discussed above I hold that the petitioners in CR 6654 of 1998 and WP(C) 295 of 1999 have no locus standi to invoke this Court's writ jurisdiction on the ground that they are not the agents under the respective States. Only the petitioner in CR 6671 of 1998 (M/s Sun International) is the agent of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and is aggrieved by the various impugned notifications of the respective respondent States. The settled position of law is that lottery is the State organised business. The State organised the business by engaging distributors and the distributors operate/manage the business only by executing agreement with the State. As distributor/agent the right to manage/operate/sale lottery/lottery tickets is a derivative right and to do business of lottery by selling tickets by these agents is managed from the agreement or otherwise with the respective State which undertakes lottery business as State organised business. The shadowed right of these agents etc like the petitioners cannot give them locus standi to challenge any order/notification of the 'other States' in question. Right of the petitioners to be a party in challenging the Central Act under Article 131 of the Constitution has been decided in a catena of judicial pronouncements which is applicable in the case of the present petitioners. Right of the petitioners to be a party in challenging the Central Act under Article 131 of the Constitution has been decided in a catena of judicial pronouncements which is applicable in the case of the present petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notifications of the respective respondent States they have to seek relief within the jurisdiction of the respective States and in that view of the matter this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petitions where private petitioners are aggrieved for the notifications issued by the respective States Govts banning/restricting lottery business from selling lottery tickets by counterpart States. 9. In the result the three writ petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. The stay orders dated 23.12.98 in CR 6654 of 1998,24.12.98 in CR 6671 of 1998 and 2.2.99 in WP(C) 295 of 1999 are vacated. No order as to costs.