These 2 (two) cases involve common questions of facts and laws and, as such, the same were taken up together for hearing on 4.6.2001, 6.6.2001, 7.6.2001 and 8.6.2001 and, accordingly, these 2 (two) writ petitions are finally disposed of & on its own merit with the following common judgment and order. 2. In Writ petition (C) No. 6016 of 2000, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and 2 others sought for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature thus, setting aside and quashing the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998,22.9.98 and 8.11.1998 h as in Annexure, HI, H2 and H3 respectively to the writ petition issued by the authorities under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and also for setting aside and quashing the Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the respondent No. 2, the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 which has been published in the Gazette notification dated 18.10.2000 as in Annexure E to the writ petition being ultra vires with the schemes of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 coupled with a prayer for a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the sale of lottery tickets of lotteries organised by the petitioners within the State of Maharashtra subject to their compliance with the provisions of section 4 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 by contending inter alia, that the petitioner-State through the sale of lottery tickets through a network of distributors, wholesalers, semi wholesalers and retailers earns substantial revenue which form a considerable part of the entire revenue of the State and is helpful as a lifeline for development of the petitioner-State and, the respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra in which the petitioner-State sells its various lotteries through its agent viz, distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers but by virtue of the existence of the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998,22.9.1998 and 8.11.1998 as in Annexure HI, H2 and H3 issued by the authorities under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and also because of promulgation and existence of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000 herein after referred to as Rules of 2000 framed by the respondent No.2. » State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the writ petitioners and its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers have been restrained rather prevented from selling of lottery tickets of lotteries organised by the writ petitioners within the State of Maharashtra without any justification. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that the impugned action on the part of the respondents concerned is against the justice, equity and good conscience and there are apparent error on the face of the record and, apart from that, the impugned action of the respondents is materially irregular. 3. Likewise, in Writ Petition (C) No. 6052 of 2000, the writ petitioners namely, the State of Nagaland and M/s MS Associates sought for the same relief in their writ petition as prayed by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) 6016 of 2000. In this writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 6052 of 2000, the writ petitioners questioned the validity of the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998, 22.9.1998 and 8.11.1998 as in Annexures 12 series to the writ petition and also the impugned Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 framed by the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, which has been published in the Gazette notification notified on 18.10.2000 as in Annexure 9 to the writ petition being ultra vires the scheme of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, herein after referred to as Act of 1998 by contending the same and similar facts and statements made by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 6016 of 2000. 4. 4. The above 2 (two) cases are contested by the respondents particularly, the respondent No.2, the State of Maharashtra by filing affidavit-in-opposition and contending inter alia, that the said Rule 9 and the entire set of Rules of 2000 h are framed to adhere and to monitor the adherence to the strict standards envisaged under the Act of any lottery to pass the test of being the State organised lottery and framing of Rules of 2000 and more a particular by Rule 9 became necessary in light of the fact it had been revealed from various complaints received by the citizens as also investigations carried out from time to time that the provisions of the said Act of 1998 and various conditions set out in section 4 of the Act of 1998 a were being flouted and breach of impunity conducted by various States. According to the respondent No.2, the 2 (two) digit lottery tickets were being clubbed in groups of 10, that means a person has to buy a minimum 10 tickets in the same number sequence and, as such, the chances of winning is therefore 10 : 100 (since it is double digit lottery) which means chance of winning is 1 :10 (since the 10 tickets clubbed are in the same sequence) and this effectively amounts to b a single digit lottery and, more than 85% of the lottery market in the State is dominated by the sale of clubbed double digit lotteries and, apart from mat, another breach, nuisance which was noticed by the State of Maharashtra is that various States including these writ petitioners-States were conducting lotteries using names such as, 'Mumbai' etc etc which were misleading the members of public to believe that the said lotteries were being conducted by the State of Maharashtra c and in that regard, various complaints were also received. That being the position, the State of Maharashtra after verifying the necessary information, the sale of tickets of lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other States framed the Rules of 2000 thus, prohibiting such sale of lottery tickets within the State of Maharashtra. That being the position, the State of Maharashtra after verifying the necessary information, the sale of tickets of lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other States framed the Rules of 2000 thus, prohibiting such sale of lottery tickets within the State of Maharashtra. It is also the case of the respondent-State of Maharashtra that the , Director concerned had been given the power to verify that the scheme of other State/States as conducted in the State of Maharashtra is not violative of any provision of the Act of 1998 by framing necessary Rules and, as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Rules of 2000. 5. The respondent, State of Maharashtra also raised a preliminary objection by contending inter alia, that these writ petitions are not maintainable in view of e Article 131 of the Constitution of India as the subject matter of the petitions relates to the disputes between one State and another State and the* Union and, as such, the same can be resolved only by way of suit under the Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. 6. The case of the respondents, State of Maharashtra and its officials as highlighted above is supported by Dr. AK Saraf, learned senior counsel. The / learned senior counsel also submitted that there is no illegality in framing of Rule 9 by the State of Maharashtra as the said Rule only sets out the permissible nature of lotteries under section 4 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and further seeks to check and monitor the conduct of lotteries within the State of Maharashtra to conform to the letter and spirit of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. It is also contended that clubbing of tickets together in any form or printing & of more than 1 (one) ticket on a single piece of paper or in a manner indicating the effect of marketing the tickets as forming a group shall be deemed as contravention of section 4 (a) of the Act of 1998. 7. Relying the decision of the Apex Court rendered in BR Enterprises vs. State of UP & others, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 700 equivalent to AIR 1999 SC 1867 , Dr. 7. Relying the decision of the Apex Court rendered in BR Enterprises vs. State of UP & others, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 700 equivalent to AIR 1999 SC 1867 , Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel submitted that the decision of the Gauhati High Court which holds the provisions of the Ordinance to be ultra vires and consequently staying the provisions of the impugned Act could not be sustained and, accordingly, it was quashed and, as such, there is no infirmity in making the impugned Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 in terms of the provisions of section 12 of the Act of 1998. In this regard, the learned senior counsel also made a reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in State of Nagaland & others, State of Arunachal Pradesh & others, and State of Mizoram & others vs. Union of India & others reported in (1998) 2 GLR 453. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Oxford University Press vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 247ITR 658 (2001). Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel submitted that the task of interpretation of a statutory enactment is not a mechanical task and it is more man a mere reading of mathematical formulae because few words possess the precision of mathematical symbols and the Court should not adopt a strictly literal interpretation of a provision/section but construe its language having regard to the object and the purpose which the Legislature had in view in enacting the provision and in the context of the setting in which it occurs. With regard to the maintainability of the present 2 (two) writ petitions, the learned senior counsel also relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court rendered in Daya Sankar Bhardwaj vs. Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi & others reported in AIR 1988 Allahabad 36. Elaborating the decision for making Rule 9 of Rules of 2000, Dr. With regard to the maintainability of the present 2 (two) writ petitions, the learned senior counsel also relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court rendered in Daya Sankar Bhardwaj vs. Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi & others reported in AIR 1988 Allahabad 36. Elaborating the decision for making Rule 9 of Rules of 2000, Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel submitted that in order to check breach and nuisance which were noticed by the State of Maharashtra in the lottery business run by other States in the State, in contravention with the provisions of the Act of 1998, the respondent-State was bound to frame the said Rule 9 particularly inasmuch as, 2 (two) digit lottery tickets were being clubbed in groups of 10, that means a person has to buy a minimum 10 tickets in the same number and sequence and the chance of winning is, therefore, 10:100 (since it is double digit lottery) which means chance of winning is 1:10 (since the 10 tickets clubbed are in the same sequence) and this effectively amounts to a single digit lottery and, as a result of which, more than 85% of the lottery market in the State is dominated by the sale of clubbed double digit lotteries and, apart from that, various States including the petitioners States have been conducting lotteries using name (s) such as 'Mumbai' etc etc. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 6016 of 2000 submitted that section 4 (c) of the Act of 1998 provides that the State Govt shall sell the lottery tickets either by itself or through distributors or selling agents and in terms of the provisions of section 4 of the Act of 1998, the writ petitioner-State is distributing and/or selling lottery tickets of lotteries organised and run by it through the writ petitioner Nos 2 and 3 and if any Act and/or any Rules are framed or passed affecting the rights of selling lottery tickets of a State than the rights of the distributor/distributors and/or selling agents are also affected and, as such, the question of attracting the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution of India in the present case does not h arise at all and hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the legal rights of the writ petitioner No.2-State as well as co-petitioners have been affected by Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000. It is also contended that the State of Maharashtra, the respondent No.2 herein is transgressing the said power and committing breach of the related provisions of the Act of 1998 particularly, section 4 read with a section 12 of the Act and, as such, question of having any of conflict with the Central Govt and the writ petitioners does not arise at all. As the challenge raised in the writ petition is clear, which is in the nature of constitutional challenge based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1998 and the List and Schedule of the Constitution of India as also of the provisions of the Union and State List, the question of dispute being in the nature of conflict between the trader and the Govt does not arise and, there is no question of agreement and/or contract between the writ petitioner No. 1 -State and the respondent No.2-State and it is precisely for the same reason that the subject matter of dispute which challenges unconstitutionality of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 framed by the respondent No.2-State can be heard and of disposed of by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and not otherwise, Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel contended. It is also argued that as the writ petitioner-State is within the jurisdiction of this Court and as Arunachal Pradesh State Lotteries are organised and run from within the jurisdiction of this Court and as the impugned action of the respondent No.2-State in incorporating of Rule 9 in the Rules of 2000 is affecting the running of the Arunachal Pradesh State Lotteries, it is obvious that cause of action for the present case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Supporting this submission, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1984 SC 1675 and submitted that it could never have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution of India that any ordinary dispute of the nature could have to be decided exclusively by the Supreme Court. 10. Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 6016 also made the following submissions in support of the case of the writ petitioners. 11. By enacting the said Rules, the State of Maharashtra has prescribed a condition for permitting the sale of lottery tickets of other States within the State of Maharashtra which is dehors section 4 (a) of the said Act and is in fact addition to the conditions laid down in section 4 of the said Act. 12. The State Govt has assumed unto itself a power of verification/scrutiny/satisfaction that the lotteries of the other States comply with the conditions in section 4 of the said Act and such a satisfaction is a must before a lottery can be sold by other States meaning thereby that the State Govt has assumed power to S prohibit the sale of lottery tickets of other States which did not come within the ambit of its satisfaction and/or which according to the State Govt do not conform to the criteria laid down in section 4 of the said Act. Moreover, the satisfaction of the Director is subjective, one aided and his sole decision which on the face of it is without any guidelines and is arbitrary. As aforesaid the said Rules of 2000 confer the power to prohibit the other State lottery within the State of Maharashtra on the State Govt. Moreover, the satisfaction of the Director is subjective, one aided and his sole decision which on the face of it is without any guidelines and is arbitrary. As aforesaid the said Rules of 2000 confer the power to prohibit the other State lottery within the State of Maharashtra on the State Govt. If the said Rule is read in conjunction and/or juxtaposition with section 6 of the Lottery (Regulation) Act, it can be seen that the aforesaid Rules tries to override section 6 of the a parent Act which clearly states that the power to prohibit any other State lottery is with the Union of India only, the State Govt having no say in the said matter whatsoever. It seems that the State of Maharashtra by enacting the said Rule purportedly using the power under section 12 of the said Act has over stepped its limits and entered into the field of legislation on an Union subject which clearly vitiates the entire Rule as being ultra vires. 13. Prohibition of a lottery is solely the power of the Union Govt which is the settled law. By enacting the said Rule, the said power is tried to be taken by the State Govt which is in fact unconstitutional and clearly in breach of the provisions of the Constitution and the subject which is exclusively covered by the Union List is tried to be dealt with by the State Govt. 14. For enacting the said Rules, the Govt of Maharashtra states that it has invoked powers under section 12 of the Lottery (Regulation) Act. Section 12 of the Lottery (Regulation) Act is however an enabling provision whereby various State Govts within the federal Union of India which permitted to frame Rules to carry out the provisions of the said Act and not to add to the provisions and/or conditions of the parent Act. The aforesaid enabling provision is merely a rule making power to enable the States to provide for particulars regarding their own lotteries such as time of the draws, period of draws, time of claiming prize money etc etc which would govern its own lotteries. Each and every State is permitted to frame such Rules regarding their own lotteries. The aforesaid enabling provision is merely a rule making power to enable the States to provide for particulars regarding their own lotteries such as time of the draws, period of draws, time of claiming prize money etc etc which would govern its own lotteries. Each and every State is permitted to frame such Rules regarding their own lotteries. The aforesaid section 12 and/ or its purport can be clear from the fact that even the State of Maharashtra has provided for the details regarding its schemes from Rule 4 to Rule 12 excepting e Rule 9 which is clearly out of context and deals with the outside State lotteries and which has no connection whatsoever with the said Rules which deals with the Maharashtra State Lotteries only. The inclusion of Rule 9 which is out of context itself shows that it deals with the outside State lotteries. Admittedly when the said Rules deal with the outside State lotteries, it is beyond the scope of section 12 of the said Act inasmuch as every State is free to frame its own Rules, ft is further pertinent to note that under the garb of framing the Rule of other State lotteries, which in itself is not permissible, a power of prohibiting the other State lotteries which power is totally outside the scope of parent Act is tried to be taken. The entire purpose of enacting the said provision is to assume unto itself a power by purportedly invoking section 12 of the said Act when the Act itself does not give any such power to the State Govt. 15. The proviso to Rule 9(1) prohibits use of words Mumbai, Maharashtra, or the name of the cities etc, as suffix or prefix to the name of the other State lotteries. The aforesaid proviso is also clearly an additional condition not being part of the Lottery (Regulation) Act at all. In a given case, if there is a misleading and/or confusion, it is a matter of evidence wherein an action in passing of has to be filed by the aggrieved person in a suit wherein evidence would be required, whereas by the said proviso with a clear attempt to avoid competition a blanket ban on the use of such names sought to be made which is not permissible. It is pertinent to note that there are certain brands of other State lotteries which are even registered trade marks and being used since last 10 to 12 years having acquired tremendous goodwill and that by providing the said rule which is in the nature of reverse passing of, the goodwill accumulated by other lotteries is sought to be high jacked by the State of Maharashtra by the said proviso. The aforesaid proviso is also totally untenable and stands vitiated. Under the scheme of our Constitution which is federal structure, free flow inter State trade, commerce and intercourse is guaranteed to maintain integration in the federal unit. Under no law there could be a blanket ban on using the name of the cities or other States as a part of the business name subject to the same not being in breach of the Emblems and/or Signs Act. Confusion and/or misleading the public to believe that a particular lottery and/or product is of the State of Maharashtra by user of a name of a city in the State of Maharashtra is a pure question of fact which is to be assessed on the material produced before the Govt in respect of a particular lottery and is required to be decided upon taking evidence in a suit for passing of and not by way of a blanket ban. Rule 9 (2) goes a step further wherein wide powers are assumed by the State of Maharashtra who can either suo motu or on complaint is satisfied that the lottery organised, conducted or promoted by other State is in contravention of the provisions of the said Act, it may prohibit such sale. The power of prohibition is directly assumed by the State of Maharashtra, by the said rule when the Act clearly provides that the power is with the Central Govt. This is in direct conflict with the Act which by an enabling provision merely enables the States to make Rules for its own lottery and not that of the other States. Here it is pertinent to note that satisfaction mentioned in the said proviso is subjective without any guidelines which is clearly arbitrary and gives unbridled power to the State Govt e to refuse satisfaction and thereby prohibit sale of any lottery of any other States by picking and choosing with a view to avoid competition. Here it is pertinent to note that satisfaction mentioned in the said proviso is subjective without any guidelines which is clearly arbitrary and gives unbridled power to the State Govt e to refuse satisfaction and thereby prohibit sale of any lottery of any other States by picking and choosing with a view to avoid competition. This in itself make the aforesaid Rule 9 (2) totally vitiated and untenable. 16. The Note under Rule 9 (2) which is in the nature of deeming provision wherein it is provided that clubbing of tickets in any form or printing of more than one ticket on a single piece of paper shall be deemed as contravention of section 4(a). The aforesaid Note first of all provides for following things : (a) control on the pattern of printing by the other State lottery tickets to a particular pattern of printing is single out for the purpose of bringing it within the deeming fiction of contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act with consequence that the said (teeming fiction would render the said lottery which comes within the ambit as a lottery and does not conform with section 4 of the said Act; (b) a condition regarding pattern of printing is added to section 4 of the said Act by the State Govt; and (c) by using section 12 which is merely an enabling power given to the State Govt to implement the said Act regarding its own lotteries to specify the routine things such as time and date of draw, manner in which the claim for prizes should be made etc etc, for administrative matters in respect of lottery of that State alone, an additional condition is tried to be inserted in the present Act itself. 17. Reliance is placed by the State of Maharashtra on two letters issued by one Shri Ramesh Kumar who is an Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, who has stated on the basis of a purported opinion of Law, Justice and Company Affairs Ministry that the lottery tickets printed in a particular form, namely printed on one sheet (10 tickets printed on one sheet having 10 consecutive sequential number etc) which are assumed as clubbed tickets, are not in conformity with section 4 (a) and spirit of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. The aforesaid letter on its plain reading is admittedly an opinion. The aforesaid letter on its plain reading is admittedly an opinion. The said letter is an internal correspondence between the Under Secretary Ramesh Kumar and the Director of Lotteries, Haryana State. It is pertinent to note that the reason for giving the said reply and/or letter of the State of Haryana to which the aforesaid reply is given is not before the Court nor is an occasion as to why such an opinion was necessary. It is further pertinent to note that no copies even addressed to the State of Nagaland and/or State of Arunachal Pradesh nor is their participation sought for issuance of such opinion. It is well settled principle of law as well as it is the foundation of interpretation of statute that when the provisions of a statute are clear and unambiguous and are capable of having a meaning, opinion and/or interpretation, of any body whatsoever does not change the meaning thereof. A statute has to be interpreted on the basis of its plain reading and not on its opinion and/or interpretation sought to be put by various persons with various motives more particularly not by subordinate Govt officers who are not empowered to legislate but are empowered only to implement. Relying on the letters which are internal correspondence between the under Secretary and one State Govt cannot in any way govern the interpretation of any statute which has to be made by reading the provision only. It is pertinent to note mat if this is the position in law as sought to be argued by the State of Maharashtra then sending report to the Union Govt for taking action against such lotteries is a must since they are empowered to do so under section 6 of the said Act and that the silence of the Union Govt only has powers to prohibit lotteries which contravenes section 4 clearly supports the petitioners' contention that the aforesaid opinion is nothing but an internal correspondence based on the views of some officers which are without any notice to the petitioner-States and cannot be relied upon. 18. According to Mr. 18. According to Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel, the Apex Court in BR Enterprises vs. State of UP & others (supra) equivalent to AIR 1999 SC 1867 held that powers to the State to prohibit other State lotteries flows from section 5 of the Act of 1998 and this provision of section 5 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and water down meaning thereby that only in lottery free zone State, if a particular State has a policy once to completely ban the business of lottery including its own lottery, only then, it can prohibit the other States lotteries to make its State lottery free zone and this principles of law particularly, the provisions of section 5 read with section 6 of the Act of 1998 has also been interpreted by the Calcutta High Court in M/s Century Teletronics, a Partnership Firm & others vs. State of West Bengal vide judgment and order dated 23.2.2000 in AST No. 349 of 2000, Writ Petition No. 3518 (W) of 2000. 19. So far the territorial jurisdiction in the matter is concerned, Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel contended that this Court has ample power to deal with the issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the rights of the petitioners-States and its distributing agents, dealers etc etc selling the lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra have been seriously affected by virtue of the impugned Rule 9 read with those impugned letters and, there can be no dispute over the territorial jurisdiction and, as such, the writ petitions are maintainable as the present dispute is not a dispute between the Govt of India and the present petitioners States. The learned senior counsel contended that the respondent- Union of India did not contest the case of these petitioners-States and even though, did not file any counter affidavit. 20. Mr. RB Soni, learned counsel assisted by Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.6052 of 2000 supported and endorsed the submissions advanced by Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel. Supporting the ease of the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.6052 of 2000, Mr. 20. Mr. RB Soni, learned counsel assisted by Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.6052 of 2000 supported and endorsed the submissions advanced by Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel. Supporting the ease of the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.6052 of 2000, Mr. RN Soni, learned counsel contended that in a case between State of Nagaland & others vs. Union of India & others reported in (1998) 2 GLR 453, the question of maintainability of the said writ petitions in terms of Article 131 was discussed and issue was settled down by this Court that the writ petitions were maintainable. However, the decision rendered by this Court in the State of Nagaland & others vs. Union of India (supra) was set aside and quashed by the Apex Court in a case between BP Enterprises vs. State of UP & others (supra) and the Apex Court did not interfere with the order and decision arrived by this Court with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions in terms of Article 131. Mr. Soni, learned counsel also argued that Rule 9 is also in conflict with the related provisions of Trade and Merchandise Act. The learned counsel went on to contend that the writ petition filed by the State of Nagaland and others is not hit by Article 131 of the Constitution of India. 21. Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior Central Govt Standing Counsel for the respondent-Union of India in his usual frankness submitted that this matter is left upon the wisdom and domain of this Court and he further submitted that necessary order may be passed in the matter to secure the ends of justice. 22. Now, this Court is to see and examine as to whether these writ petitioners in both the writ petitions have enforceable legal rights or not and, whether this Court has its jurisdiction to entertain these 2 (two) writ petitions and, whether the impugned Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 and the impugned letters are tenable in the eye of law or not. 23. For better appreciation and just determination of the real points in controversy in the matter and, apart from the observations made above, the related provisions of sections 4,5,6, 7, 8 and 12 of the Act of 1998 and that of the Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 are quoted below : "4. 23. For better appreciation and just determination of the real points in controversy in the matter and, apart from the observations made above, the related provisions of sections 4,5,6, 7, 8 and 12 of the Act of 1998 and that of the Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 are quoted below : "4. Conditions subject to which lotteries may be organised etc: A State Govt may organise, conduct or promote a lottery, subject to the following conditions namely: (a) prizes shall not be offered on any pre-announced number or on the basis of a single digit; (b) the State Govt shall print the lottery tickets bearing the imprint and logo of the State in such manner that the authenticity of the lottery ticket is ensured; (c) the State Govt shall sell the tickets either itself or through distributors or selling agents; (d) the proceeds of the sale of lottery tickets shall be credited into the public account of the State; (e) the State Government itself shall conduct the draws of all the lotteries; (f) the prize money unclaimed within such time as may be prescribed by the State Govt or not otherwise distributed, shall become the property of that Govt; (g) the place of draw shall be located within the State concerned; (h) no lottery shall have more than one draw in a week; (i) the draws of all kinds of lotteries shall be conducted between such period of the day as may be prescribed by the State Govt; (j) the number of bumper draws of a lottery shall not be more than six in a calendar year; (k) such other conditions as may be prescribed by die Central Govt. 5. Prohibition of sale of ticket in « State: A State Govt may, within the State, prohibit the sale of ticket of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by every other State. 6. Prohibition of organisation etc of lottery: The order published in the Official Gazette, prohibit a lottery organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of section 4 or where tickets of such lotteries are sold in contravention of the provisions of section 5, 7. 6. Prohibition of organisation etc of lottery: The order published in the Official Gazette, prohibit a lottery organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of section 4 or where tickets of such lotteries are sold in contravention of the provisions of section 5, 7. Penalty: (1) Where a lottery is organised,, conducted or promoted after the date on which this Act receives the assent of the President, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, by any Department of the State Government, the Head of the Department shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render such Head of the Department liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such contravention. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention under this Act has been committed by a Department of Govt and it is proved that the contravention has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any officer, other than the Head of the Department, such officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3) If any person acts as an agent or promoter or trader in any lottery organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of this Act or sells, distributes or purchases the ticket of such lottery, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 8. Offence to be cognizable and non-bailable. The offence under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable. 12. Power of State Govt to make Rules - (1) The State Govt may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make Rules in carry out the provisions of this Act. 8. Offence to be cognizable and non-bailable. The offence under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable. 12. Power of State Govt to make Rules - (1) The State Govt may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make Rules in carry out the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such Rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) time to be fixed for claiming prize money under clause (f) of section 4; (b) period to be fixed for draws of all lotteries under clause (i) of section 4; and, (c) any other matter, which is required to be, or may be, prescribed. (3) Every Rule made by the State Govt under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature where it consists of two Houses, or where such Legislature consists of one House, before that House. Rules of 2000: Rule 9. Sale of lottery tickets by other States. (3) Every Rule made by the State Govt under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature where it consists of two Houses, or where such Legislature consists of one House, before that House. Rules of 2000: Rule 9. Sale of lottery tickets by other States. (1) Any other State may sell the tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by such State in the State of Maharashtra subject to the condition that such States shall before starting the sale of tickets in the State of Maharashtra, submit its entire schemes for the sale of tickets with all the details and relevant material such as specimen tickets, the name of the lottery, information relating to the number of draws, and list of its authorised agents and distributors, and other relevant material information, relating to its lottery schemes as the Director may require so as to enable the Director to verify that the scheme of that State as conducted in the State of Maharashtra is not violative of any of the provisions of the Act: Provided that, no State selling their tickets in the State of Maharashtra shall use a name or prefix or suffix in the name of a lottery (e.g. Mumbai, Maharashtra, name of the cities in Maharashtra, or any such other name which can be used as prefix or suffix or otherwise), which could misled people to believe that the said lottery is run or conducted by Govt of Maharashtra and where the State Govt is satisfied that such use is misleading or is likely to misled the people to believe that the lottery is run or conducted by the State of Maharashtra, the State Government may prohibit sale of such tickets within the State of Maharashtra. (2) Where the Govt of Maharashtra, either suo motu or on a complaint received in that behalf, is satisfied, after verifying the necessary information, that the sale of the tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other State in the State of Maharashtra, is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, it may prohibit such sale within the State of Maharashtra, and inform the matter to the Govt of India seeking the orders in the matter under section 6 of the Act. Note : Clubbing of tickets together in any form or printing of more than one ticket on a single piece of paper or in a manner indicating the effect of marketing the tickets as forming a group shall be deemed a contravention of section 4 (a) of the Lottery (Regulation) Act, 1998." 24. A bare perusal of these provisions of law laid down under sections 4,5, 6,7, 8 and 12 of the Act of 1998 and that of Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 mentioned above show that specific provisions had been laid down under the Act of 1998 but, Rule 9 (1) (2) proviso and notes thereof, have been framed in complete defiance of the provisions of sections 4,5,6 and 12 of the Act of 1998 inasmuch as, the State of Maharashtra, the respondent No.2 herein has usurped the legislative power of the Parliament inasmuch as, the State of Maharashtra had added certain conditions and provisions in framing the said Rule 9 which is in the nature of entering into legislative field of the Union of India. According to me as highlighted above, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Nagaland had complied with the conditions laid down under section 4 of the Act while organising its lotteries and conducting of it as there is no concept of clubbing of tickets in the said Act, nor is there any pattern of printing provided in the Act of 1998 and, over and above this, the writ petitioners-States have been printing lottery tickets in any manner and pattern they like which would suit its business policy in accordance with its schemes and provisions particularly, laid down under section 4 of the Act. It is also my view that the said Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 was framed by the State of Maharashtra the respondent No.2 herein by invoking power given under section 12 of the Act of 1998 thus, overriding the pattern of the Act of 1998 by adding unreasonable restrictions and the conditions to section 4 of the Act of 1998 which is clearly contrary to the scheme of the Act of 1998 and, apart from that, 'note' under the said Rule 9 has been framed by the State of Maharashtra thus, treating it as a specific Rule which is not tenable in the eye of law as discussed above. Under no law there could be a blanket ban of using the names of cities or other States as part of the business name subject to the same not being in breach of the emblem and/or sign etc. The power of prohibition has been strictly assumed by the State of Maharashtra by the said Rule 9 when the Act clearly provides that power is with the Central Govt. 25. The Central and the State Govt have also been given Rule making power. Although the States are free to make Rules, but the Central Govt has an upper hand in the matter and, as such, the Central Govt has been given absolute power to prohibit a lottery business if it is in contravention of the conditions given in the Act. 26. According to me the entire Rule 9 viz Rule 9(1), (2), proviso, and the Note are not tenable in law for the following reasons : (A) The aforesaid rule amounts add condition to section 4 of the Lottery Regulation Act which is in the nature of entering into legislative field of the e Union Govt by a State Govt which is not competent. The State Govt cannot add to any condition and/or provision in the Lottery (Regulation) Act by invoking powers under section 1? which are the enabling powers only for the better implementation of the Act for the State's own lotteries. (B) In a federal structure where there is free flow of inter State trade and commerce every State is empowered to carry on business in any other State. By restricting the user of name of cities as prefix or suffix is unreasonable restriction on trade by a State as also is an addition to the conditions required to be fulfilled by a State under section 4 of the said Act. The issue of brand name and/or goodwill is an issue which relates to the Trade Marks Act and the civil liability is required to be determined in a civil Court after taking evidence. The State Govt cannot take upon its own power to decide whether a particular name misleads which is unrestricted and arbitrary power more so when for its own lotteries the Director is given full authority to frame a scheme in any manner as mentioned in Rule 9(1) of the said Rule. This is clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (C) There is no concept of clubbing of tickets in the said Act nor is there any pattern of printing provided in the said Act. Any State Govt can in accordance with its scheme print tickets in any manner and pattern it like which would suit its business policy subject to it complying with the conditions laid down in section 4 of the said Act. Printing of several tickets on a sheet of paper with separate distinctive numbers making each and every ticket as identifiable unit distinct from the other tickets cannot be termed as being against the provisions of section a 4 of the said Act. This amounts to adding a further condition by the State Govt other than what is mentioned in section 4 of the said Act which is impermissible in law, unconstitutional and devoid of any legislative competency. (D) The enabling provision i.e. section 12 enables every State to frame its own Rules regarding its scheme particularly on administrative matters within the ambit of the said Act. To construe the same as giving power to prohibit other State lotteries is not only absurd but clearly against the provisions of law and the scope of the Act. Any Rule which is framed under an Act cannot over ride or govern the Act. In the same manner a Rules framed under the Act has to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act and cannot override or over step the provisions of the Act. A rule making power is also a power which is for better implementation of the provisions of the Act and not to add provision thereto which if done vitiates the entire rule, In the present case Ride 9 which is framed by invoking power under section 12 of the parent Act over ride the parent Act by adding of section 4 which is clearly contrary to the scheme of the Act more so when die Act is enacted by the Central Govt whereas the Rules is enacted by the State Govt in a matter which is in the Union List. The illegality in the matter is therefore clear and established. The illegality in the matter is therefore clear and established. (E) 'Note' under a rule can be added either to clarity what is mentioned under which the said Note is made and/or to carve out exception from the rule itself. A detailed new provision cannot be added to a rule under the pretext of making a note. This clearly violates the basic principles of interpretation of statute. In the present case, note is vitiated and untenable since it neither clarifies the rule nor does it carve out an exception to the said rule but .adds a totally new provision which in itself is a rule. This clearly vitiates the said Note also. (F) The entire thrust of the State of Maharashtra regarding the alleged contravention of provision of section 4 of the said Act by concept of printing of clubbed tickets is totally misconceived, misplaced and without any nexus to the provisions of the Act inasmuch as (i) the aforesaid 10 tickets on a sheet of paper are all distinct tickets with distinctive several numbers and that a customer has choice either to purchase one or two or a part of the 10 tickets; (ii) since option to buy any number of tickets is with the customer whether tickets are printed on a sheet of paper or in a particular pattern does not matter and the customer can buy any number of tickets according to his choice whether it is printed on a sheet of paper or even individually. Admittedly when the lottery result is declared on two digit the same cannot be called as single digit lottery merely by the manner of fruiting. (G) The scheme of a lottery depends on the method of draw namely as to on what basis the prizes are declared whether it is one digit, two digits or on any other pattern. In the present case prizes are declared on two digit admittedly which is the method of draw and hence to term as single digit ticket by the Maharashtra Govt/authority is absolutely and factually incorrect. (H) Commercial consideration in the form of competition do not determine the rule and/or interpretation, If legally a State is entitled to formulate a scheme a by deciding on its own as to what would be the pattern of printing, the same cannot be objected to on commercial considerations. (H) Commercial consideration in the form of competition do not determine the rule and/or interpretation, If legally a State is entitled to formulate a scheme a by deciding on its own as to what would be the pattern of printing, the same cannot be objected to on commercial considerations. If there is a lacuna in law, it is only the Union Govt which can rectify the same. The State has no power to add to the said provision for the alleged filling up of lacuna which is not permissible for want of legislative competency and discussed above. 27. In M/s BR Enterprises vs. State of UP & others reported in AIR 1999 SC 1867 , the Apex Court reversed and turned down the related decision of the Gauhati High Court and dealt with the matter in respect of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and held thus: "89. In section 2 (b) lotteries are defined to be a scheme for distribution of prizes by a lot or chance. This definition itself recognises that even in State lotteries the prizes are to be collected by chance without any skill, hence gambling in nature. Section 3 prohibits that no State lotteries can be organised without the condition stipulated under sub-sections (a) to (k) of section 4. Section 4 provides the conditions to be complied with by the State lotteries. To initiate any State lottery, it is left to the policy of each State, for this the Act is silent. The only control is, in case it decides, then it must follow the conditions as laid down under section 4. Next comes section 5 which is subject matter of challenge, the delegation of power to the State to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets organised by every other State. If a State desires not to subject its people to the lottery gambling, it has no power to restrict lotteries organised by other States. It is to remove this mischief that power is conferred through delegation to the States to do it in terms of its own policy. By virtue of this, now the State Govt can prohibit sale of lottery tickets of every other States within its territory. Next, section 6 seeks strict compliance of section 4. Under this the Central Govt may prohibit any State lottery which is being conducted in contravention of the conditions as later on under sections 4 or 5. By virtue of this, now the State Govt can prohibit sale of lottery tickets of every other States within its territory. Next, section 6 seeks strict compliance of section 4. Under this the Central Govt may prohibit any State lottery which is being conducted in contravention of the conditions as later on under sections 4 or 5. Section 7 shows the rigor of this Act by making it,^ penal offence as against all, who violate the provisions of this Act, may be the Head of the Department of the Govt or the agent, promoter or trader, to be punishable with two years rigorous imprisonment. Section 8 makes such an offence cognizable and non-bailable. Similarly, section 9 deals with offences committed by the companies. Section 10 entrusts the Central Govt power to give directions to the State Govt for carrying into execution the provisions of this Act, Rule or Order. Sections 11 and 12 are the rule making power entrusted to the Central and the State Govt respectively. Section 13 repeals the Ordinance. Thus, the whole Act make clear that the subject it is dealing is gambling in nature. The object of the Act is not to control the policy decision of each State to start or to close its lotteries, but to regulates it in case a State decides to run its own lottery through modalities and conditions laid down therein. Emphasis of the whole Act is to abide by the condition strictly if you want to run a lottery. Thus, regulation is through conditions to eliminate even the remotest possibility of malpractices by providing stringent measures for its compliance. Perusal of the Act reveals, the scheme of the Act is limited in its application, and it admits the subject it is dealing is gambling in nature. As we have said, decision to collect or not to collect revenue through State lotteries is exclusively within the policy decision of the State and for this, neither the Union nor the Parliament interferes nor there is any indication under the Act. Thus, the question which remains is, if any State decides that it does not want any lotteries but if it feels a helpless as having no jurisdiction over the lotteries organised by other States, what is the way out ? Thus, the question which remains is, if any State decides that it does not want any lotteries but if it feels a helpless as having no jurisdiction over the lotteries organised by other States, what is the way out ? This can only be done by Parliament or by entrusting this power on such State desiring so which has been done through section 5. In this background, for this helplessness of a State as recorded in the Anraj Case, (AIR 1988 SC 781) (supra) remedy is provided by entrusting this power on the Stale under the impugned provision. This helps such State to achieve its objective of lottery (gambling) free b zone within its territory. A well concerned remedy. Next question is what could have been the guideline ? If State lotteries are gambling and it cannot be termed as 'trade and commerce' at common parlance for any free right under the Constitution. Such right through recognised under Article 298 so other States may continue to enjoy till prohibited by valid law, and if any State want within its State lottery free zone and for which the power is entrusted to such State, it cannot be said in this setting and background and the nature of the subject that such a delegation is of its essential legislative power. The only guideline necessary in such delegation is to see State does not pick and choose one State from the other, which guideline is already provided in this section. It provides that such a ban could only be if it is applied to every other State. The only residual field of attack so far this delegation could be, which has been attacked in this case, mat State could on one hand ban lotteries of " every other State but run its own lotteries. It is argued while a State bans lotteries of other States not to permit any gambling activity in the public interest as a policy but this very public interest is flouted by having lotteries of its own. It is true that unless this provision is read down to mean a State can only ban lotteries of other States when it bans as a policy its own lotteries it is bound to be subjected to the vagaries as pointed out and on deeper scrutiny it may not successfully stand. It is true that unless this provision is read down to mean a State can only ban lotteries of other States when it bans as a policy its own lotteries it is bound to be subjected to the vagaries as pointed out and on deeper scrutiny it may not successfully stand. But e by reading down the provisions, which has to be read that it is only that State which decides lottery free zone within its State can prohibit lotteries of other States clearly, provides the guidance for the exercise of such a power. It is in-built and inherent in the provision itself in view of the scheme of die Act and nature of subject in issue. If interpretation as given on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu is accepted that delegation of power is absolute, then the submission that such delegation is unbridled without any guideline carries great weight. Submission for the Tamil Nadu is that the lotteries may be prohibited in phases, viz., while running its own lotteries yet prohibiting other lotteries, may be as a public policy, for law and order, for political reasons, morality etc. For surviving such an interpretation given by Mr. Ganguli, the Parliament should have provided some guidelines. Such an interpretation falls into the trap of the submission that this delegation is unbridled. So if there are two interpretations, the interpretation which upholds the validity should be accepted. So the interpretation as given by Mr. Ganguli cannot be accepted. 90. There are two parts of the attack of die delegation of power to the State under section 5. The latter part, by which it can prohibit sale of lottery tickets organised by every order States which leaves no scope of any discretion on die States to discriminate from one State to other. So if it decides no lottery tickets of any State to be sold it cannot pick or choose from one State to the other. Once it, as a policy, decides to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets of other States it must prohibit every other State, that is to say, all the States and such a delegation cannot be said to be either abdication of the legislative power of the Parliament or to be unbridled or unguided. Once it, as a policy, decides to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets of other States it must prohibit every other State, that is to say, all the States and such a delegation cannot be said to be either abdication of the legislative power of the Parliament or to be unbridled or unguided. As we have said looking to the nature of subject and object of the Act which is to help each State in its endeavour to run State lotteries which would include starting or closing its lotteries and when a State want to have lottery zone in its State, then such a delegation to ban lottery of every other State cannot be said to be invalid. To the first part, Acre are two interpretations, one on the plain reading of section 5, a State may run its own lottery yet may prohibit the sale of lotteries of other States. This construction leads to discrimination and opens for criticism of unbridled delegation. The submission further is, if me ban of sale of lottery tickets of every other State is as a public policy, affecting the morality and resultant ill effect on its subject then mere is no justification mat State may run its own lottery affecting the very subject which the power is exercised prohibiting the lotteries of other States. It is true, if such an interpretation is accepted then this submission has a force. On the other hand, on behalf of the Union, the submission is that language of the section has to be read down. The decision to have its lottery or not to have its lottery has to be in the public interest. Every decision to have either lotteries authorised by the State or organised by the State has to be in public interest. May be for collection of public revenue or for a public purpose. It has been held in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd vs. Brojo Naih Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 at para 93: "There must be no injury or harm to the public interest, public good and public welfare." Thus, the decision to run State lottery has to be made with the conscience of its evil consequences on its subject. Thus before deciding the State has to equate the public welfare with the injury on its public. Thus before deciding the State has to equate the public welfare with the injury on its public. It may be in a given case within the limitation of its financial capacity with the need of the hour' it has to decide to run its own lotteries to augment its revenue in the larger interest of the public which if weighed with the evil consequences on its subject, the public welfare gains more by running it men the evil consequence on its subject has to give way till situation changes by finding better way for this additional source or evil consequences inflicting on its subject over-weighing. This exercise has to be by each State Union not coming in its way. It is for each State to decide what is its public welfare and what constitutes an injury to the public interest Rattan Chand Hira Chand vs. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67 : (1991 AIR SCW 496) (Para 17) holds, what constitutes public interest or welfare would depend upon the time. The social milieu in which the contract is sought to be enforced would decide the factum, the nature and the degree of injury." The Apex Court examine the provisions of section 5 of the Act of 1998 in the said case M/s BR Enterprises vs. State of UP ( supra) and held thus: "We find on plain reading of section 5, it empowers the State Govt within its State to prohibit the sale of tickets of the lotteries organised by every other State. There is also nothing in me language reading by itself so as to say, whether such power can be exercised by State while running its own lottery or can be exercised only where such State does not run its own lottery. This leads to two possible interpretations, as referred to above. In view of settled principle of interpretations, the interpretation given by the Union to read down the provision has substance. This would mean State could only exercise such discretion if it decides not to have a any lottery within its territory including its own lottery. In this situation, the delegate is tied down by this limitation which itself is a clear guide to a State hence cannot be said to be unbridled delegation. So even to the first part it cannot be said to be arbitrary nor unbridled. In this situation, the delegate is tied down by this limitation which itself is a clear guide to a State hence cannot be said to be unbridled delegation. So even to the first part it cannot be said to be arbitrary nor unbridled. So, we have no hesitation to approve the interpretation given by the Union to uphold the validity of section 5." 28. A bare perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in M/s BR Enterprises (supra) shows that the State has to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1998 which is an Act to regulate the lotteries and to provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and, if a State desires/ wants to ban the sale of lottery tickets of any State or States inside its territory, it cannot adopt the method of pick and choose policy but, it ought to have issued notification banning of the State lotteries within the State and for such State so desires for banning such State lotteries inside its State, such State should be a lottery free zone State. Hence, it is well settled by the Apex Court in M/s BR Enterprises vs. State of UP (supra) thus, interpreting section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and State could only exercise such discretion within the purview of section 5 of the Act of 1998, if it decides not to have any lottery within its territory including its own lotteries and, the Apex Court in that case, further held that in view of settled principles of interpretation, the interpretation given by the Union to read down the provision has substance. Therefore, the respondent-State of Maharashtra is not empowered to ban lotteries of other Sates including the present petitioners-States namely, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland which have been carrying on the business of organising lotteries and formulated several schemes of lottery which are sold throughout the country by following the related provision of section 4 of the Act of 1998. 29.1 have examined and considered the case of the respondent-State of Maharashtra. The case laws so far cited and relied upon by Dr. 29.1 have examined and considered the case of the respondent-State of Maharashtra. The case laws so far cited and relied upon by Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel are well settled principles of law of the land and, in my considered view, these case laws cited and relied upon by him do not support the case of the respondent-State of Maharashtra but it goes against the respondent-State in view of the observations and findings which have been reflected and highlighted in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment and order and, as such, I am not in agreement with Dr. AK Saraf, learned senior counsel who supported the case of the respondents-State of Maharashtra & another. 30. Both the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland are small States in the North Eastern Region of the Union of India. The terrain of the petitioner-States fall in the hilly region and due to topographical difficulties and scarcity of revenue, the petitioner-States are highly undeveloped and the per capital income of the inhabitant of the petitioner-States are much lower than the other prosperous parts of the country. The petitioner-States are engaged in the business of organising lotteries and formulated several scheme of lotteries, which are sold throughout the country more particularly in the respondent No. 2 State through a network of distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers. The petitioner-States through the sale of said lotteries, earns substantial revenue, which form a considerable part of the entire revenue of the States and are helpful as a lifeline for development of the petitioner-States. The petitioners-States are in the business of organising State lotteries since last many years and due to the immense goodwill, which it has earned in the said business, its lotteries are popular and are able to withstand competition of lotteries organised by the other States. 31. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, who are directly concerned with the promulgation of the Presidential Ordinance, namely the Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance. 31. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, who are directly concerned with the promulgation of the Presidential Ordinance, namely the Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance. 1997, which has subsequently enacted by the Parliament as the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1998), the respondent No.2 is the State of Maharashtra in which the petitioners-States sell its various lotteries through a chain of distributors, wholesalers and retailers. Respondent No.3 is the Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, under whom the State Police machinery functions. Subject of lottery is incorporated in Entry 40 of List 1 of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India as highlighted above which reads as under: "Lotteries organised by the Govt of India or the Govt of a State." Entry 34 of the List H of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India reads as - 'Betting and Gambling'. In respect of lotteries organised by the Govt of India or the Govt of a State, which is referred to in the first entry above, the power to legislate and/or enact laws is solely of the Parliament regarding any e legislation in connection thereto and that the State Govt has no power whatsoever to pass any legislation qua the lotteries organised by the Central Govt and/or the State Govts within the Union of India. 32. There is no dispute that the expression 'Betting and Gambling' includes and has always been understood to have included the conduct of lotteries. However, the subject "Lotteries organised by the Govt of India or the Govt of a State" has been taken out of the legislative field comprised by the expression 'Betting and Gambling' and is reserved to be dealt with by the Parliament. Since the subject "Lotteries organised by the Govt of India or the Govt of a State" has been made a subject within the exclusive legislative competence of the Parliament in view of the provisions of Article 246 (1) and (3) of the Constitution of India, no Legislature of a State can make a law touching the lotteries organised by the Govt of India or the Govt of a State. Even the Maharashtra Legislature has acknowledged this position in section 32 of the Bombay Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competitions (Tax) Act, 195 8. The aforesaid Act has been enacted to control and tax lotteries and tax prize competitions in the State of Maharashtra and that section 32 (b) of the said Act expressly provides that nothing in this Act shall apply to a lottery organised by the Central or a State Govt. This is a recognition of the prevailing situation under the Constitution of India. The constitutional position therefore cannot be altered by the Act of a State Legislature. 33. In the case between H. Anraj & others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 292 , the Apex Court held that a State Govt is not competent to impose ban on sale within that State of lottery tickets of outside a States in the absence of an Act of Parliament and entrustment of executive power to the State under Article 25 8 (1) in that regard. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in the matter is quoted below : "In view of Entry 40 of List I of Seventh Schedule and Article 246 (1) and (3), no Legislature of a State can make a law touching lotteries organised by Govt of India or Govt of a State. Reading and considering Articles 73 and 298 together it is clear b that the executive power of a State in the matter of carrying on any trade or business with respect to which the State Legislature may not make laws is subject to legislation by Parliament but is not subject to the executive power of the Union. The Govt of a State has the right to conduct lotteries subject to legalisation by Parliament. Since there is at present no legislation by Parliament on the subject "Lotteries organised by the Govt of India or the Govt of a State", the Govt of every State has the c unrestricted right to organise lotteries of its own." In another case between RSDV Finance Co Pvt Ltd vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2094 , the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of its judgment held that the State Legislature do not possess the power to make a law having extra-territorial operation. Only the Parliament has that power. Only the Parliament has that power. This observation was made by the Apex Court relying the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Kochuni vs. State of Madras ( AIR 1960 SC 1080 ), Chanisila Dasi ( AIR 1959 SC 1002 ) and Bhabapritananda ( AIR 1959 SC 1073 ). Similarly, in a case between Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs. State of Bihar & others, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 557 , the Apex Court held that when a subject matter exclusively falls within the Union List, mere absence of any Parliamentary legislation or statutory rules would not confer power on State Legislature to legislate on that subject. 34. In the instant 2 (two) cases, it is seen that the State of Maharashtra, the respondent No.2 herein made certain Rules namely, Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 by touching the lotteries organised by the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland thus, giving certain unreasonable restrictions upon these 2 (two) writ petitioners-States which have the rights to conduct lotteries subject to legislation by the Parliament. These writ petitioners-States have been conducting and organising lotteries subject to legislation by Parliament, in other words, in terms of the Act of 1998 but, by virtue of the impugned Rule 9 of Rules of 2000, had imposed restrictions upon these 2 (two) petitioners-States by making the impugned Rule 9 which according to me, it is beyond the competence of the respondent No 2, the State of Maharashtra. I made this observation relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court as discussed above. 35. I am also of the view that such Rule 9 of Rule of 2000 is obviously beyond the jurisdiction and the same is against the mandate of provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Act of 1998. At this stage, thereby recalled a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Tahir Hussain vs. District Board, Muzaffarnagar, reported in AIR 1954 SC 630 . The impugned Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 is inconsistent with and contravention of the Act of 1998 in view of the above observation. Once again in this regard, a reliance can be made to another decision of the Apex Court rendered in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh & others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 . The impugned Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 is inconsistent with and contravention of the Act of 1998 in view of the above observation. Once again in this regard, a reliance can be made to another decision of the Apex Court rendered in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh & others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 . As discussed above, Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 is ultra vires the provisions of the rule making power as laid down under section 12 of the Act of 1998. In this regard, a reliance can be made to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in General Officer Commanding-in Chief & another vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav & another reported in AIR 1988 SC 876 . 36. So far question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court concerned as contended and objected by the respondents concerned once again it is needless to see and examine the relief sought for by the writ petitioners-States which is one of the relevant criteria for consideration though not the sole. In these 2 (two) writ petitions, the writ petitioners questioned the validity of the impugned Rule 9 of Rules of 2000 mainly on the ground that the rights of selling lottery tickets of these 2 (two) petitioners-States through its distributors or selling agents have been seriously affected, in other words, the lotteries organised by these 2 (two) States have been affected and the cause of action of it arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, as such, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant 2 (two) writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the legal rights of the writ petitioners have been affected by Rule 9 of Rules of 2000. In support of this observation and findings, a reliance can be made to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 wherein the Apex Court held that the High Court will have jurisdiction if any part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction even though the seat of Govt or authority or residence of person against whom direction, order or writ is sought to be issued is not within the said territory. 37. 37. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, I am of the view that the writ petitioners in both the above cases could make out a case to justify the interference with the impugned Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, Part 1 published in the related State Gazette on 18th October, 2000 as in Annexure E to the writ petition (in Writ Petition (C) No.6016 of 2000) and in Annexure 9 to the writ petition (in Writ Petition (C) No.6052 of 2000) framed by the State of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Act of 1998 including its note as being ultra vires to the said provisions of sections 4,5,6 and 12 of the Act of 1998, and accordingly, it is hereby set aside/quashed, in other words, this rule shall not be applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland and its authorised agents including distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers in the matter of sale of lottery tickets of these petitioners-States in the State of Maharashtra. It is also made clear that in the light of above observations, the impugned letters dated 4.9.1998,22.9.1998 and 8.11.1998 as in Annexures HI, H2 and H3 to the writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 6016 of 2000 and impugned (three) letters as in Annexures 12 series namely, Annexures 12,12A and 12B to the writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 6052 of 2000 shall not be applicable in case of present 2 (two) writ petitioners namely, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland in the matter pertaining to the sale of petitioners' lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra through its distributors, wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers, in other words, the respondents particularly, the respondent No.2, the State of Maharashtra and its authorised agents are hereby restrained from interfering with the sale of the petitioners States lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra. This observation is made after considering the matter in question pros and cons and also after proper application of my mind in the matter to secure the ends of justice. In the result, these 2 (two) writ petitions are allowed but, no order as to costs.

State of Arunachal Pradesh : State of Nagaland v. Union of India and Ors.