Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 195 (KAR)

S. N. ASHVIN v. UNION OF INDIA

2004-03-11

H.L.DATTU

body2004
H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is an agent for selling lottery tickets of all States including karnataka State. His primary grievance in this writ petition is that his business and means of livelihood is seriously affected by Government of karnataka conducting the draws of Karnataka State Lotteries on the basis of single digit and also conducting draws more than once a week in various names in violation of the provisions of Section 4 (a) and (h) of the lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 ('the Act' for short), ( 2 ) IN the petition, petitioner is seeking the following reliefs. They are:" (a) To issue a writ, prohibiting the respondents from conducting draws on Karnataka State Lotteries on the basis of a single digit and also conducting draws more than once a week in various names, (b) To direct the respondent 1 to prosecute respondents 2 to 4 for violation of the provisions of Section 4 (a) and (h) of the Act, 1998, and (c) Lastly, for such other relief including the cost of this writ petition that this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case". ( 3 ) ONLY one ground is urged in the petition. It is as under:"the grounds urged in support of the reliefs prayed for in the petition are that the Government has been conducting the State lotteries in violation of the provisions of Section 4 (a) and (h) of the Act, 1998 and this adversely affects the sale of lottery tickets of other States and consequently the petitioner selling the lottery tickets of all the States is adversely affected. His business and means of livelihood are affected violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution". ( 4 ) SOME factual details are stated in the body of the petition in support of the grounds urged and the relief sought in the petition ( 5 ) SRI C. Dinakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that conducting draws of lotteries and offering prizes on any pre-announced numbers and on the basis of a single digit is prohibited under Section 4 (a) of the Central Act and therefore conducting such scheme is in violation of the aforesaid provision. While elaborating his submission, the learned Counsel would contend that conducting lotteries by the State Government on the basis of a single digit by offering prizes on pre-announced numbers is impermissible under the Act, 1998. It is his further contention that the government has been conducting five draws every day, six days in a week except on public holidays. Prizes range from rupees one lakh upto rs. 80 and insofar as fourth prize is concerned, in the first row the first numbers namely, 0 to 9 are prefixed and draws are conducted only for the second number and thereby conditions prescribed under Section 4 (a) of the Act is violated and the State is contravening the Central legislation which is made applicable to the entire country. Secondly, the learned Counsel would contend that the State government is conducting draws in the name of Karnataka State lottery but with different names such as Karnataka Dhanalakshmi diamond, Karnataka Yogalaxmi Diamond, Karnataka Ishwaryalaxmi diamond, Karnataka Bhagyalakshmi Diamond, Karnataka kanakalaxmi Diamond at different times. On the same day, five draws and repeated six days in a week, except on public holidays and this is in violation of the provisions of Section 4 (h) of the Act and therefore, the daily lottery conducted by the State Government requires to be declared as illegal and in violation of the provisions of Central Act. In aid of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Mis. B. R. Enterprises and another v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. In the said decision, the apex Court was primarily considering the issues inter se between two distinct set of States, one challenging and the other upholding certain provisions of Lotteries (Regulation) Ordinance, 1997, which was later replaced by Act known as Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. The Apex court has upheld the provisions with some reservations. In my view, decision on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner may not assist him in any manner whatsoever for deciding the issues canvassed in this writ petition. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that he would not press for the second relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition. In view of that, submission made in that regard is not noticed. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that he would not press for the second relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition. In view of that, submission made in that regard is not noticed. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 have filed their detailed statement of objections, firstly, refuting the assertions made in the petition and secondly, resisting the relief asked for in the petition. They specifically deny the assertion that the Government of Karnataka is selling the lottery tickets and conducting draws on any pre-announced number or on the basis of a single digit and thereby violating the provisions of section 4 (a) of the Act, 1998. In their counter, they have referred to the procedure for drawing winning number and they have further stated that 1st to 3rd prizes are offered on 5 digit numbers and where each digit is picked by different persons from public and the 4th prize is offered on two digit numbers and they have further stated that the first digit is pre-fixed from 0 to 9' and the second digit is drawn from different numbers containing numbers from 0 to 9' and this is posted against the second digit and the prize is awarded to the number with these digits and the said method is followed to see that there is equal distribution of prizes and at least one prize is assured in a bundle of 10 tickets. Therefore, they contend that the last prize is not offered on a single digit but on two digit numbers. In their statement of objection, they have also stated that the Government of Karnataka is conducting seven (7) weekly draws everyday including Sundays and all the draws in a day will have different structure and name of the draws repeat in a week, in the sense, no draw is held more than once a week. In support of this assertion, they have stated that Karnataka Bhagyalakshmi diamond draw with its unique structure is being held on Monday at 11. 00 a. m. and will be held only on Monday at 11. 00 a. m. next week and that particular scheme is not repeated on any other day or time of the week. Similarly, Karnataka Yogalakshmi Diamond draw with its unique structure is being held on Monday at 12. 00 a. m. and will be held only on Monday at 11. 00 a. m. next week and that particular scheme is not repeated on any other day or time of the week. Similarly, Karnataka Yogalakshmi Diamond draw with its unique structure is being held on Monday at 12. 00 noon and will be held only on monday of the next week and is not repeated on any other day or at any time in a week. Therefore, though the Government of Karnataka has seven weekly draws in a day, no one draw repeats itself in a week and therefore, is thus in conformity with Section 4 (h) of the Lottery (Regulation) Act, 1998. They further assert, each draw has a structure of its own and the name of the draw is only to identify that particular structure and each structure is unique to that particular draw and is different from other draws Therefore, they contend, that it cannot be said that the Government of Karnataka is conducting more than one draw in a week by giving a new name to every draw and thereby violating the provisions of Section 4 (h) of the Central Act. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT 5, who has come on record with the permission of the court, has also filed its statement of objections and they also canvass the very same grounds urged by respondents 1 to 4. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsels for the parties to the Us reiterate their stand, which they have pleaded in their written pleadings and support their stand by relying upon the dictionary meaning of each word by referring to various dictionaries. The learned Counsel Sri Naik, appearing for the fifth respondent also has produced some documents to demonstrate the meaning of the expression 'single digit lottery'. These aspects, I will refer to it a little later while discussing the true scope and possible interpretation that could be placed on Section 4 (a) and (h) of the act. ( 10 ) THE primary question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is, whether the lotteries conducted by the State government on hourly basis on each day would violate any of the provisions of Central Act, 1998 and in particular Section 4 (a) and (h) of the Act? ( 10 ) THE primary question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is, whether the lotteries conducted by the State government on hourly basis on each day would violate any of the provisions of Central Act, 1998 and in particular Section 4 (a) and (h) of the Act? ( 11 ) THE Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 is a Central enactment and the object and purpose of the Act is to regulate the lotteries and to provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The Act came into force with effect from 2nd day of October, 1997. The meaning of the expression 'lottery' is defined in the dictionary clause of the Act to mean a 'scheme', in whatever from and by whatever name called, for distribution of prizes by a lot or chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets. Then the question would be, what is the meaning of the expression 'scheme', which the Legislature has advisedly used while defining the meaning of the expression 'lottery'? the 'scheme' is nothing but a plan, a purpose; a specific organisation for some end; a combination of things by design. For the purpose of this act, in my view, a scheme means a proposal prepared and published by the State Government in relation to the nature of lottery would be held for the day, week or a month. Section 3 of the Act provides for prohibition of lotteries. It only says that no State Government shall organise, conduct or promote any lottery except in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for certain conditions, subject to which lotteries may be conducted, organised or promoted by the State governments. Omitting what is not highlighted by learned Counsel for petitioner, the provisions which are necessary for the purpose of this case are only Section 4 (a) and (h) of the Act. Therefore, they are extracted and they read as under:"section 4. Conditions subject to which lotteries may be organised, etc. A State Government 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". Therefore, they are extracted and they read as under:"section 4. Conditions subject to which lotteries may be organised, etc. A State Government 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". ( 12 ) THE analysis of the aforesaid provision is as under the lottery, which is a scheme for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets, shall not be firstly on any pre-announced number. The words "pre-announced number means, on a number, which is already made public or circulated or made known by official intimation. The word "number" is synonymous with words numerals, figures, digit, can mean in common character by which an arithmetical value is designated. The number may refer to a character or to a word. For example, the number forty-five, the number 45 (Webster's Third New international Dictionary ). In the Oxford Reference Dictionary, the word 'number' is defined as 'number a count, sum or aggregate of persons, things or abstract units, an arithmetical value showing position in a series, a symbol or figure representing this. Secondly, the prizes shall not be offered on a single digit. The word 'single' denotes 'one', for example, 'single Judge', one Judge when acting judicially or when presiding over a Court of Justice (Section 25 (1) of the code of Civil Procedure and Article 145 (2) of the Constitution ). The word 'digit' according to Webster's Third New International dictionary, would mean, any one of the whole numbers from one through nine; one of the 10 Arabic numerals by which all numbers may be expressed. In New Webster's Dictionary, 'digit' means any positive integer under 10' including 0'. In Oxford Reference Dictionary, 'digit' means any of the numbers from 0' to 9'. ( 13 ) SECTION 4 (h) of the Act is as under: "no lottery shall have more than one draw in a week". Since 'lottery' means a scheme, the Legislature mandates that no scheme shall have more than one draw in a week. In Oxford Reference Dictionary, 'digit' means any of the numbers from 0' to 9'. ( 13 ) SECTION 4 (h) of the Act is as under: "no lottery shall have more than one draw in a week". Since 'lottery' means a scheme, the Legislature mandates that no scheme shall have more than one draw in a week. ( 14 ) THE State has framed its own Rules known as Karnataka State lottery Rules in exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act 17 of 1998) and the same is published in Notification No. FD 117 SAVULA 97, dated 8th September, 2000. In the Rules, the meaning of the expression 'act, Agent, Prize amount, State Lottery, Ticket', etc. , are defined. For our purpose, it is suffice to notice the meaning of the expression 'prize amount, State lottery and Ticket' '. 'state Lottery' means Karnataka State Lottery Scheme formulated by Government of Karnataka for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to the persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing ticket. 'prize amount' means the amount payable to a prize-winning ticket in a lottery draw. 'lottery' means the Karnataka State Lottery Ticket released for sale by the Government. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for administering and implementing state Lottery. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for conduct of State Lottery. Rule 5 of the Rules speaks of denomination of ticket. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for mode of issue of tickets. Rule 14 of the Rules speaks of release of schemes, which says the Government may release such number of State Lottery Schemes in conformity with the Act. Rule 15 of the Rules provides for procedure for drawing winning number, etc. Rule 19 of the Rules provides for proceeds of sale of tickets. Under this Rule, the proceeds shall be credited by the Agent with the approval of the director to the consolidated fund of the State under the appropriate budget head as per agreement. ( 15 ) THE core contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that the daily lotteries conducted by the State Government is purely based on pre-announced numbers and on the basis of a single digit. ( 15 ) THE core contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that the daily lotteries conducted by the State Government is purely based on pre-announced numbers and on the basis of a single digit. Per contra, the learned Advocate General and Sri Naik, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would contend that there is no basis whatsoever for the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In aid of their submissions, they have demonstrated before this Court, what was the system in vogue prior to 1993, if not in this State, but in the other States. The learned Counsel sri Naik also produces before me a ticket of a different State where lotteries used to be conducted not only on pre-announced numbers and also again on a single digit. By way of illustration, the learned Counsel sri Naik, also produces before me a note to illustrate how this term 'single digit' and 'double digit' is understood in the 'lottery' circles. It would be useful to reproduce that note to answer the contention canvassed by learned Counsel for petitioner. It is as under: Illustration for Single Digit Lottery Rank of Prize No. of prizes Winning number Prize amount I 01 123467 1,00,000 II 01 23467 5,000 III 10 3467 500 IV 108 467 100 V 1080 67 50 VI 108800 7 40 Illustration for Double Digit Lottery Rank of Prize No. of prizes Winning number Prize amount I 01 36757 1,00,000 II 01 23456 5,000 III 10 74796 500 IV 108 467 100 V 70,000 06, 17, 23, 34, 46 58,61,70,88,91 80 ( 16 ) IN a scheme, the State Government, if it pre-announces that a particular number of a lottery ticket would be a prize winning number to those persons participating in the chances of prize by purchasing a ticket, that could be termed as the prize offered on a pre-announced number and that is impermissible in view of specific bar under Section 4 (a) of the Central Act. In a single digit lottery system, if the scheme is that all tickets ending with a particular number would get a prize, then there could be a possibility that in a book of 100 tickets, to tickets all ending with a particular number would get a prize. In a single digit lottery system, if the scheme is that all tickets ending with a particular number would get a prize, then there could be a possibility that in a book of 100 tickets, to tickets all ending with a particular number would get a prize. Even when it comes to the 4th prize of the lottery ticket, a participant by a betting on a number would not get a prize. If he has to win a prize, he should necessarily quote two numbers of the lottery ticket. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner, the numerals 0 to 9 would remain constant in all the lottery draws held in a day and therefore, the participant in the lottery only has to quote the second number to be a winner of the 4th prize and therefore, the lottery conducted by the State Government is a single digit which is prohibited under Section 4 (a) of the Act. The argument looks attractive but on a deeper consideration of the matter, in my view, it has no merit. In my view, without there being other Humeral, if the prize winning ticket was determined on one single number or digit, then the learned Counsel for the petitioner would be justified in contending that the lottery is being held on a single digit, which would squarely oppose to the provisions of Section 4 (a) of the Act. It is no doubt true that the scheme provides the first numerals from 0 to 9' and the second digit is drawn at the time of draw that is conducted as provided under rule 15 of the Rules. The person participating in the draw will not get a prize, if he quotes only one digit. It is a misnomer to call the present system of lottery scheme a single digit lottery, since chances of winning a prize would not just depend on a single digit of a lottery ticket. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that daily and weekly draws held by the State Government are in contravention of section 4 (a) of the Central Act cannot be accepted. ( 17 ) THEN the other question is, whether the lotteries conducted by the state Government does contravene sub-section (h) of Section 4 of the act? Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that daily and weekly draws held by the State Government are in contravention of section 4 (a) of the Central Act cannot be accepted. ( 17 ) THEN the other question is, whether the lotteries conducted by the state Government does contravene sub-section (h) of Section 4 of the act? ( 18 ) THIS sub-section, as I have already noticed, prohibits State governments in conducting draw of any lottery more than one draw in a week. The learned Counsel Sri Dinakar appearing for the petitioner would submit that the State Government is conducting five draws in a day and seven days in a week except on public holidays though by changing the name of each lottery, but the fact remains that it is the state Government, which is conducting Karnataka State Lottery. Therefore, there is violation of the mandate of Section 4 (h) of the Act. This submission of the learned Counsel looks attractive but difficult to accept in view of the definition of the expression 'lottery' in the definition clause. Since the expression 'lottery' means a scheme, what is prohibited under the Central Act is that the scheme shall not have more than one draw in a week. The State Government, if I am permitted to use the expression to hoodwink the provisions of Section 4 (h) of the Act, have devised a method that all the draws in a day will have different nomenclature and different structure and this particular scheme is not conducted more than one draw in a week and no one draw is repeated in a week. May be this is a clever device adopted by the State Government and as long as this mechanism or device is not in contravention of the provisions of Central Act, it cannot be said that the scheme adopted by the State Government would violate statutory provisions of Central enactment. In the alternative, it can be said that the scheme could be in whatever form or whatever name called, but that should not have more than one draw in a week. In the alternative, it can be said that the scheme could be in whatever form or whatever name called, but that should not have more than one draw in a week. In the present case, the State Government is conducting its lottery and therefore, it has to be said Karnataka State lottery but it has adopted different scheme with different nomenclature and different structures, and therefore, it cannot be said that the 'scheme' is repeated more than one draw in a week. In view of this, it cannot be said that the 'scheme' has more than one draw in a week. ( 19 ) IN view of the aforesaid circumstances, none of the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for petitioner has any merit whatsoever. Accordingly, the following: order i. Writ petition is rejected. II. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .