P.O. Agarwal, J.— Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as the question of law involved in both these appeals are identical. The writ appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.8.2001 in W.P.(C) No. 6016/2001 and order dated 30.8.2000 in W.P.(C) No. 6052/2000. Writ Petition (C) 6016/2000 was filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh challenging the Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the respondent State of Maharashtra. The writ petitioner also/challenged the letters dated 4.9.98, 22.9.98 and 8.11.98 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the State of Arunachal Pradesh organises lottery under the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and likewise the Maharasthra Govt. also organises lotteries in the State. The State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 for short, "the Act", framed certain Rules and Rule 9, according to the petitioner places unnecessary restrain and prevents the petitioner from selling their lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra and is thus violative of the Constitution. 3. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 6052/2000, the State of Nagaland & Ors. has also sought similar relief against the State of Maharashtra on the same grounds. 4. Both these writ petitioners were contested by the respondent State of Maharashtra stating, inter alia, that the Rules of 2000 were framed under the Act and these were within the powers of the State and Rule 9 was necessary to protect the interest of the consumer. The respondent also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 5. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order decided the question of territorial jurisdiction in favour of the writ petitioners and also held that Rule 9 of the Maharashtra State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2000, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2000" are ultra vires and accordingly those Rules were quashed. It was also held that the impugned letters dated 4.9.98, 22.9.98 and 8.11.98, that is, Annexure-H/ I, H/II and H/III in W.P.(C) No. 6016/2000 are not applicable in respect of the petitioners. Hence the present appeals. 6. Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned sr. It was also held that the impugned letters dated 4.9.98, 22.9.98 and 8.11.98, that is, Annexure-H/ I, H/II and H/III in W.P.(C) No. 6016/2000 are not applicable in respect of the petitioners. Hence the present appeals. 6. Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned sr. advocate appearing for the appellant State of Maharashtra has submitted that the learned Single Judge should not have entered into the merits of the case before deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. In support of the above submission learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others-Vs-Agani Exports Ltd. 2002 (1) SCC 567 . The Apex Court observed that "the question of jurisdiction should be first decided before entering into the merits of the case. We found that the question of territorial jurisdiction was also decided by the learned Single Judge along with the merits of the case. We, therefore, propose to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction first before reverting to the merits of the matter. 7. The case of the writ petitioner is that in view of the impugned Rule 9 of the Rules, 2000, the rights of the petitioner States to sell their lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra has been seriously affected and the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the legal rights have been affected. During the course of argument it was further submitted that it is not a dispute between the Govt. of India and the petitioner States and even the Union of India did not contest the matter by filing written statement. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also challenged the validity of certain letters/circulars issued by the Union of India which according to the petitioners are in violation of the Act. Thus, we find that according to the petitioners the cause of action or part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court whereas according to the appellants this Court lack jurisdiction. In the case Oil and Natural Gas Commission-Vs-Utpal Kr. Basu, 1994(4) SCC 711 , the Apex Court held: "It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In the case Oil and Natural Gas Commission-Vs-Utpal Kr. Basu, 1994(4) SCC 711 , the Apex Court held: "It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour -Vs- Pratab Singh Lord Watson said: "........ the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour." Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5,7,18,22,26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, had referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India-Vs-Oswal Woollen Mills 1984(2) SCC 646 . However, we find that in para 11 of the Adani Exports (supra) the Apex Court were of the opinion that Oswal's case is no authority to decide as to the requirement of law in regard to establishing the territorial jurisdiction of a Court. In the case of Nabin Chandra N. Majithia-Vs-State of Maharashtra & Ors. However, we find that in para 11 of the Adani Exports (supra) the Apex Court were of the opinion that Oswal's case is no authority to decide as to the requirement of law in regard to establishing the territorial jurisdiction of a Court. In the case of Nabin Chandra N. Majithia-Vs-State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2000(7) SCC 640 the Apex Court upon consideration of earlier decision observed: "Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put in differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition." 9. Now coming to the pleadings of the case the appellant State of Maharashtra in para 6 of their affidavit in opposition has stated that: "I submit that even assuming although not admitting that Article 131 of the Constitution of India does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case then also this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the present writ petition as no part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." The writ petitioners have replied as below: "That, the statements made in paragraph 6(a) of the affidavit are misconceived, ill founded, misleading and as such, denied by the answering deponent. It is specifically denied that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the present writ petition as no part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is specifically denied that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the present writ petition as no part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is respectfully stated that as the writ petitioner State is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and as such Arunachal State Lotteries are organised and run from within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and as the impugned action of the respondent No. 2 State in incorporating Rule 9 in the Rules, 2000 is affecting the running of the Arunachal State Lotteries, it is obvious that the cause of action for the present case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the contention of the respondent No. 2 to the effect that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is nothing but an absurd contention and the said contention deserves to be rejected straight way being without any substance. But incorporating Rule 9 in the Rules, 2000, the respondent No. 2 has directly encroached on the powers of the writ petitioner No. 1 State to frame its own Rules to regulate its own lotteries and the subject matter of the present writ petition also has a bearing on the right of the writ petitioner No. 1 State to organise, conduct and sell its lottery tickets within the State of Maharashtra as being part of the federal union. It is further stated that since the writ petitioner No. 1 State is directly involved and affected by the framing of the said Rule, the substantial part of the cause of action has in fact also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and therefore, the contention of respondent No. 2 regarding the territorial jurisdiction ought to be thrown out and/or rejected straight way by this Hon'ble Court. That, the statement made in paragraph 6(d) of the affidavit are ill founded, misconceived, misleading, perverse, false and hence, denied by the answering deponent. That, the statement made in paragraph 6(d) of the affidavit are ill founded, misconceived, misleading, perverse, false and hence, denied by the answering deponent. It is respectfully stated that the ratio of the judgment and order dated 18.1.1998 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Rule No. 4986 of 1997 is squarely applicable to the present case and as a similar issue with respect to the jurisdiction was raised in the, said writ petition also, it has to be taken as a precedent in deciding the question of jurisdiction in the present case. It is denied that the writ petitioner No. 2 has no right to maintain the present writ petition. However, as the writ petition has been filed by petitioner No. 1 State and the writ petitioner No. 2 Company, i.e. the authorised agent of writ petitioner No. 1 State as co-petitioners, it cannot be learned as a dispute raised by the writ petitioner No. 2 alone. The dispute between the parties, being not in the nature of a contract, is not a dispute between the State and State as envisaged in Article 131 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the writ petitioner No. 2 Company, being an agent of the writ petitioner No. 1 State, functions from the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and any action against writ petitioner No. 1 State by virtue of any unconstitutional Rules framed by respondent No. 2 would directly affect writ petitioner No. 2 Company also and therefore, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present writ petition. The same set of facts, has already been upheld by this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 4986 of 1997. It is denied that no rights of petitioner No. 2 Company are affected by the Rule 9 of the Rules, 2000 inasmuch as though it is true that the lotteries of writ petitioner No. 1 State is required to conform with the provisions of the Section 4 of the Act, 1998, it is also a fact that the respondent No. 2 cannot incorporate additional conditions by way of framing of Rules over and above the conditions stipulated in Section 4 of the Act, 1998. Since the aforesaid Rule 9 of the Rules, 2000 adds to the conditions stipulated in Section 4 of the Act, 1998, the rights of both the writ petitioners No. 1 and 2 are clearly affected and therefore, they have a common as well as an individual interest in quashing of the Rule 9 of the Rules, 2000 and there is a clear cause of action as regards both the writ petitioners No. 1 & 2 in the present writ petition." 10. As regards the applicability of Article 131 of the Constitution of India, we find there is no dispute between the Govt. of India and the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners have challenged certain circulars or letters issued by the Union of India to the State of Punjab and Haryana regarding the sell of lottery tickets. The Union of India was made a part but they did not contest the proceeding and there was a submission on behalf of the counsel for the Union of India that the Court may decide the issue as it may deem fit and proper. 11. The dispute is also not as regards any inter-State trade or commerce. In the case of BR. Enterprises-Vs-State of U.P, 1999(9) SCC 700 the Apex Court held that the sale of lottery tickets by State does not come within the ambit of trade and commerce as under Article 301 but still it would be business within the meaning of Article 298(b) of the Constitution of India. 12. In B.R. Enterprises (supra) the Apex Court examined the Constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and it was read down the provision of Section 5 of the Act to strike a balance and it was provided that the State should regular, restrict or restrain the sale of lottery tickets of other States only where such State does not runs its own lottery. In the present case there is no dispute at the Bar that the State of Maharashtra do run their own lottery and, as such, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland have the statutory right under the Act to sale their lottery tickets within the State of Maharashtra. In the present case there is no dispute at the Bar that the State of Maharashtra do run their own lottery and, as such, the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland have the statutory right under the Act to sale their lottery tickets within the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted that by the impugned Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 the State of Maharashtra is trying to put unnecessary restriction as regards the printing of tickets and sale of tickets of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Nagaland within the State of Maharashtra and this violates the right of these States provided under the Act. It is further stated that the printing of tickets by the petitioner States and organisation of the lottery is carried out within the jurisdiction of this Court, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court can entertain the writ petition. In Navinchandra (supra) the Apex Court held that even if a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, such High Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition (civil). Considering the pleadings and the reliefs sought for in these cases, we hold that the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the question of territorial jurisdiction in favour of the writ petitioners and accordingly we hold that there is no ground to throughout the writ petitions on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 13. Now coming to the question of merit of the matter, the two writ petitioners have challenged the Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 which reads as follows: "9. 13. Now coming to the question of merit of the matter, the two writ petitioners have challenged the Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 which reads as follows: "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 scheme 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 verify that the Scheme of that State as conducted in the State of Maharashtra is not violative of any or 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 a prefix or suffix or otherwise) which could mislead people to believe that the said lottery is run or conducted by Government of Maharashtra and where the State Government is satisfied that such use of misleading or is likely to mislead 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 Government of Maharashtra, either suo moto 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 Government of India seeking its 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 as contravention of Section 4(a) of the Lottery (Regulation) Act, 1998." 14. Mr P.K. Goswami, learned sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a note to the said rules has created an offence in respect of clubbing of tickets. The clubbing of tickets or printing of more than two tickets in a single piece of paper was the innovation made out by these States to economise the cost of printing of tickets. The Central Act nowhere prohibits such action. The Rules were framed under the said Act and admittedly the Rules cannot override the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that no distinct or separate offence can be created by the rules where, the Act does not provide for the same. Learned counsel has also produced certain tickets printed and sold by the State of Maharashtra to show that even the State of Maharashtra has started printing more than two tickets in a single piece of paper. 15. It is further submitted by Shri Goswami that the Act prohibits the holding of lottery or offering the prizes on the basis single digit only. It does not ban or bar offering prizes on the basis of the double digit. Hence, the State of Maharashtra has no authority or jurisdiction to ban double ticket lotteries by promulgation of the impugned Rules. 16. It is further submitted that the provision to Clause (1) of Rule 9 has restrained the other State refusing the name or to prefix or suffix in the name of lottery (as for example, Mumbai, Maharashtra, the name of the cities of Maharashtra or any such other names which can be used as a prefix or suffix or otherwise). According to the writ petitioner this is an unnecessary restriction on the other States and the State of Maharashtra had no authority to put such restrictions except as provided under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Every citizen and every other State has the right to use the Emblem and the names in accordance with the said Act. Every citizen and every other State has the right to use the Emblem and the names in accordance with the said Act. The above restriction under Rule 9(1) was in respect of other States only, whereas the State of Maharasthra was entitled to make use of those names. Some lottery tickets were produced before us to show that one of the lottery organised by the State of Maharasthra is known as 'Pushkar', which is a place situated in the State of Rajasthan. 17. The organisation and sale of lottery tickets is a business in which the vying States are always in competition to stiffle out other rivals in order to garner maximum sale and thereby earn maximum profit to the coffers of their State. The provision in Clause (1) of the Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 makes an unreasonable distinction between the State of Maharashtra and the other states. The other states are organising such lottery and selling tickets in the State of Maharashtra are required to submit their entire scheme for the sale of tickets with all the details and relevant materials, such as, specimen tickets, the name of the lottery, the information relating to the number of prizes, list of its authorised agents and distributors and other relevant material information to the Director of Maharashtra State Lotteries and they can sell their tickets only after the approval is granted by the State Directorate of the appellant State. This seems to be simply a ploy to oust the business rivals. One cannot force their business rivals to divulge their business secrets and for their prior approval for organising the lottery. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the above pre-caution is necessary to see or examine whether the lotteries are being conducted in accordance with the Act or not. In case of alleged contravention of the provision of the Act the States are at liberty under the Act to refer the matter to the Central Govt, who is the only authority to take action. 18. In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has held that Rule 9 as it stands is ultra-vires. We also find that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 was beyond the Rule making power of the State under the Act and they are discriminatory, arbitrary and not in accordance with the spirit of the Act. 18. In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has held that Rule 9 as it stands is ultra-vires. We also find that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2000 was beyond the Rule making power of the State under the Act and they are discriminatory, arbitrary and not in accordance with the spirit of the Act. The existence of such Rules adversely affects the interest of other States who are organising and selling lottery tickets in the State of Maharashtra. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge, therefore, needs no interference. There is no merit in these appeals and both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Costs easy.