ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the press communique (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand in pursuance of the notification No. 3646 dated 05.12.2008 in purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1998’] putting a complete ban within the State of Jharkhand on sale of lottery tickets organized/conducted/promoted by the other States. Further prayer has been made to declare that the said press communique issued by the Government of Jharkhand is ultra vires to the Constitution of India, so far as it relates to the lotteries organized by the other State Governments, as the State of Jharkhand lacks legislative competence in putting complete ban on sale of lottery tickets organized/conducted/promoted by the other States. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of lottery tickets since the year 1972 particularly the lotteries organized/conducted by the Government of Sikkim. It is further submitted that Section 5 of the Act, 1998 does not empower the State of Jharkhand to put ban on sale of lottery tickets organized/conducted/promoted by the other States. Since the State of Jharkhand does not organize/conduct/promote any lottery, the ban has intentionally been put on sale of the lottery tickets organized by the other States. The impugned press communique putting complete ban on sale of lottery tickets within the State of Jharkhand is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such action of the erstwhile Government of Bihar was challenged before the Patna High Court in the case of M/s Iqbal Chand khurana & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in (1994) 1 BLJR 702 wherein a Division Bench of the Patna High Court vide judgment dated 14.01.1994, held that the State of Bihar did not have the legislative competency to promulgate the Bihar Ban on Lottery Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1993’). As such, the impugned press communique prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets within the State of Jharkhand organized/conducted/promoted by the other States is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the same may be quashed. 3. Per-contra, Mr. As such, the impugned press communique prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets within the State of Jharkhand organized/conducted/promoted by the other States is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the same may be quashed. 3. Per-contra, Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned A.C to G.P-III, submits that the impugned press communique has been made in pursuance of issuance of notification No. 3646 dated 05.12.2008 by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand under Section 5 of the Act, 1998, which has been published in the Jharkhand Gazette on the same day. It is further submitted that the State of Jharkhand is primarily a tribal State, a large population of which is illiterate and as such there was an urgent need to protect the interest of the people of Jharkhand which prompted the State Government to issue the said notification in exercise of power conferred under Section 5 of the Act, 1998. The State Government realized that the poor and illiterate people of the State of Jharkhand were losing considerable amount of their income in purchase of lottery tickets. The tribals were in the habit of adopting shortcut route of earning money by indulging themselves in purchase of lottery tickets. As such, the State Government in its wisdom thought it proper to put a ban on sale of lottery tickets organized by the other States in the State of Jharkhand. 4. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand produces a copy of the Gazette Notification dated 05.12.2008 which is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand puts reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in (1999) 9 SCC 700 . 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State of Jharkhand lacks legislative competence in putting ban on sale and purchase of the lottery tickets organized by the other States. and other analogous cases reported in (1999) 9 SCC 700 . 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State of Jharkhand lacks legislative competence in putting ban on sale and purchase of the lottery tickets organized by the other States. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such attempt was earlier made by the erstwhile State of Bihar by promulgating the Act, 1993, the validity of which was considered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of M/s Iqbal Chand khurana (Supra) and it has been held that the State legislature has no legislative competency to come across with such a ban. I do not find any substance in the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner primarily for the reason that the said judgment was rendered while considering the legislative competence of the State legislature in promulgating the Act, 1993. However, in the present case, the Government of Jharkhand has exercised its power under Section 5 of the Act, 1998 which is a central legislation. Moreover, the Constitutional validity of the Act, 1998 was itself challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. R. Enterprises (Supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the entire issue arising out of the Act, 1998, has held that the same is neither violative of Article 14 nor Article 303 of the Constitution of India. For better appreciation of the matter, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: “75. It is true that by perusal of these various office memoranda, circular letters and the affidavit of the Union of India depicts the state of uncertainty in the Union and so it took its oscillating stand, as it stood then and now. Then the stand was, since Bhutan lottery is under a treaty, all States should permit its sale, now the stand is that such lottery would fall under Entry 34 List II hence would be subject to the law of the State. So far the submission that Bhutan lottery cannot be controlled under the impugned Act has merit. Then the stand was, since Bhutan lottery is under a treaty, all States should permit its sale, now the stand is that such lottery would fall under Entry 34 List II hence would be subject to the law of the State. So far the submission that Bhutan lottery cannot be controlled under the impugned Act has merit. The impugned Act is confined to the State-organised lotteries under the Union list, under Entry 40 List I. However, submission on behalf of the Union, which is also incorporated in its aforesaid affidavit, is, as per agreement, the sale of Bhutan lottery tickets in India and sale of Indian Government/State Government lottery tickets in Bhutan will be subject to the relevant laws as may be enforced in the territory of Kingdom of Bhutan and India, as the case may be. Thus, under the terms of the present treaty itself, the sale of Bhutan lotteries has been agreed and subjugated to be, subject to the relevant laws in India. So far as this treaty is concerned, there is no law yet framed by Parliament under Entry 14 List I. Admittedly, Bhutan lottery does not fall under Entry 40 List I. Thus, the restrictions and conditions imposed under the impugned Act would only apply to the State lotteries and not to the lotteries of the Kingdom of Bhutan. Next, it has to be seen that when the treaty makes it obligatory for the Bhutan lotteries to be subject to the Indian laws, and in the absence of any law by Parliament pertaining to the treaty under Entry 14 List I, under which class of lottery it would fall and which law it would be subjected to. We also make it clear, in the present case, that the aforesaid treaty with the Kingdom of Bhutan is not subject to any challenge. Let us examine first the relevant entries of the lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is admitted that it does not fall under Entry 40 List I. Another relevant entry is Entry 14 List I which refers to treaty. This treaty could be under this entry, but in the absence of any law by Parliament it would be governed by the terms of the treaty itself. Entry 41 List I refers to the trade and commerce with foreign countries. This treaty could be under this entry, but in the absence of any law by Parliament it would be governed by the terms of the treaty itself. Entry 41 List I refers to the trade and commerce with foreign countries. Even if it falls under it, in the absence of the law by Parliament it would be governed by the terms of the treaty. Entry 42 List I deals with inter-State trade and commerce, under which it will not fall. 76. The sale of lottery tickets of Bhutan but for the aforesaid stipulation in the treaty it possibly could have been said it cannot be subjected to the laws of lotteries in India. But once treaty itself stipulates it to be subject to any law in India, then if the sale of Bhutan lottery tickets are not State-organised lotteries, it necessarily falls under other lotteries under Entry 34 List II. There is no other entry pertaining to lottery. Thus, it necessarily follows that its sale within India will be subject to the laws of the State as is applicable under this entry. In other words, if the State prohibits sale within its State not only sale of its own lottery but every other lottery, then the sale of lottery tickets of Bhutan will have to be subjected to the laws of that State. Thus, prohibition to other lotteries will equally be applicable to the sale of Bhutan lottery. In the present case, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr Vaidyanathan, also subscribed to this interpretation on behalf of the Union. As we have said, in the absence of law by Parliament, so far as the treaty with the said stipulation is concerned, there could possibly be no other interpretation. This interpretation further eliminates possible discrimination which is the subject of attack in the present case. Thus, the Bhutan lottery could not be said to be privileged or it, in any way, discriminates with other State lotteries. 77. The second limb of argument pertains to discrimination between one State and the other. We having held above, that the State lotteries cannot be construed to be “trade and commerce” within the meaning of Article 301, there could possibly be no question of any discrimination or violation of Article 303. 77. The second limb of argument pertains to discrimination between one State and the other. We having held above, that the State lotteries cannot be construed to be “trade and commerce” within the meaning of Article 301, there could possibly be no question of any discrimination or violation of Article 303. Even under Article 14, there possibly could have been argued discrimination, if the discretion was left on the States to choose as to which State it likes to prohibit; but in the present case in Section 5 the State could only exercise its discretion in case it decides to prohibit sale of lottery tickets of every other State. If this is so, there could possibly be no conceivable discrimination. Hence, we do not find that there is any discrimination either on account of Article 303 or Article 14 of the Constitution between States of the Union and the Bhutan lottery and from one State to other State.” 7. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had also the occasion to deal with the Constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Act, 1998 and after considering the entire aspect related therewith, the Constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Act, 1998 has been upheld. The relevant paragraphs containing the discussions made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the validity of Section 5 of the Act, 1998 are quoted hereunder: “85. There are two parts of the attack of the delegation of power to the State under Section 5. The latter part, by which it can prohibit sale of lottery tickets organised by every other State which leaves no scope of any discretion on the 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 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 Parliament or to be unbridled or unguided. As we have said looking to the nature of the 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 wants to have lottery-free 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, there 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 the 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 there is no justification that the State may run its own lottery affecting the very subject for 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 the 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. Maybe for collection of public revenue or for a public purpose. It has been held in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [ (1986) 3 SCC 156 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 429 : (1986) 1 ATC 103 : AIR 1986 SC 1571 ] AIR 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 (sic consciousness) of its evil consequences on its subject. Thus, the decision to run State lottery has to be made with the conscience (sic consciousness) of its evil consequences on its subject. 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 then the evil consequence on its subject has to give way till the situation changes by finding a better way for this additional source or evil consequences inflicting on its subject overweighing. This exercise has to be by each State, the 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 v. Askar Nawaz Jung [ (1991) 3 SCC 67 ] SCC 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. 86. So, whenever a State decides to run or not to run its lotteries it is the State which has to decide as a public policy in the public interest. Once such a decision is taken to have in its State lottery-free zone, the entrustment of power by Parliament cannot be said to be ultra vires. 87. We find on plain reading of Section 5, it empowers the State Government within its State to prohibit the sale of tickets of the lotteries organised by every other State. There is also nothing in the language reading by itself so as to say, whether such power can be exercised by the 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 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 that the State could only exercise such discretion if it decides not to have any lottery within its territory including its own lottery. In this situation, the delegatee 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 or unbridled. So, we have no hesitation to approve the interpretation given by the Union to uphold the validity of Section 5.” 8. It would thus be evident from the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. R. Enterprises (Supra) that the ban imposed by the State Government on sale and purchase of lottery tickets organized by the other States cannot be said to be unconstitutional, discriminatory and arbitrary as long as the particular State Government does not make any pick and choose in relation to putting ban on sale and purchase of lottery tickets organized by a group of States and allowing the other set of States to do so. On perusal of the notification dated 05.12.2008 as well as the impugned press communique, it would appear that the State of Jharkhand has put a complete ban on sale and purchase of lottery tickets organized by all other States. In fact, the petitioner himself has stated in the present writ petition that the State of Jharkhand is not involved in organizing sale and purchase of lottery tickets. It can thus safely be concluded that the State of Jharkhand is well empowered under Section 5 of the Act, 1998 to prohibit sale of lottery tickets organized/conducted/promoted by the other States within its territorial jurisdiction to safeguard the interest of the people of Jharkhand, a large population of which is tribal. 9. The present writ petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed.