Madras High Court
N. Palaniappan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 10 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 MADRAS 123
ORDER Y. Venkatachalam, J.
1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 56 Finance (Raffle) Department dated 29-1-1992 and to quash the same in so far as it is against the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the prize winning ticket No.G 261164 Thirumagal Bumper Draw held on 3-8-1990 and also a further amount of 1,50,000/- for the counterfoil bearing No. G 261164 Thirumagal Bumper Draw held on 3-8-1990 forthwith.
2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents counter affidavits have been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.
5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The petitioner herein is a poor Agriculturist owing a small extent of land near Kannankurichi. He purchased a Raffle ticket bearing No. G.261164 from the Government Authorised Lottery Ticket Agent M/s. Sapathagiri Agency, Kannankurichi during the month of July 1990. The draw was held by the 1 st respondent on 3-8-1990 and the result was published in dallies on 4-8-1990. The ticket was sold to him by the agent alongwith the counterfoil. The said agent used to give the counterfoil also alongwith the Raffle ticket in order to encourage the customers. The sale of tickets through authorised agents, conduct of draw and the distribution of prize money to the winning tickets are prescribed by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Raffles Rules 1976 and as per Rule 20 of the Rules, the Agent is entitled to a bonus equivalent to 10% of the prize if anybody won by the ticket purchased by him. The result of the Thirumagal Bumper draw was published in dailies on 4-8-1990. Without properly going through the result published in the dailies, he thought that he did not get any prize for his ticket and he threw the ticket in his house. Unfortunately his brother's child who was playing in his house torn the ticket into pieces. Thereafter he came to know that the ticket sold at Kannankurichi secured the first prize. Since he purchased the raffle from Kannankuruchi he once again verified the results and to his surprise the ticket which was purchased by him got the first prize money of Rs. 25,00,000/- and then he collected the torn ticket pieces pasted them and handed over to the 3rd respondent on 5-8-1990 for collection as per the procedure laid down in the rules. The 3rd respondent forwarded the ticket to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent acknowledged the receipt of the same on 10-8-90. The petitioner also sent a representation to the 2nd respondent explaining the circumstances under which the ticket was torn and requested to accept the ticket and make payment. It is his case that though the ticket was torn into four pieces, the genuineness of the ticket could be easily verified as the parts containing the number and other relevant particulars are in tact. Only a small negligible portion which does not contain any important material particulars could not be traced by the petitioner. Further according to the petitioner. In the present case, the draw was made on 3-8-1990 and results were published in the dailies on 4-8-1990. As per Rule 37, the claim should be made within 90 days from the date of draw. He lodged the claim on 10- 8-90 and hence it is well within the time stipulated under Rule 37. The petitioner has filed photostat copy of the torn ticket in the typed set to this writ petition. The 2nd respondent in its letter dated 3-9-1990, addressed to the 3rd respondent required to produce the seller's counterfoil and the piece of missing part at the right end of the raffle ticket. It is also his case that in spite of his best efforts, the missing part and counterfoil could not be traced out. This fact was informed to the respondents by the petitioner on 12-9-1990. However, when the petitioner cleaned his house on 26-9-1990, he found out the counterfoil and the petitioner sent the same to the 3rd respondent for forwarding it to the first respondent and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent immediately. The 2nd respondent in its order dated 13-10-90 without a proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the whole issue, rejected the claim of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has not even considered the petitioner's claim with respect to the bonus amount due to him for the counterfoil as per the Rules. Aggrieved against the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent under Rule 39 on 7-11-1990. The first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 56 Finance (Raffle) Department dated 29-1-1992 passed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for the prize of Rs. 25 lakhs on the ground that the genuineness of the prize winning ticket could not be verified on account of the petitioner's failure to produce the vital portion of the ticket which contained the security mark. However, the first respondent in its order dated 29-1-1992 directed that the sellers' bonus of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of the counterfoil be paid to the petitioner as per the existing rules. The petitioner submits that the first respondent is not correct in paying only Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner for the counterfoil. As per Rule 20 the petitioner is entitled to 10% of the total prize money which comes to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The first respondent accepted the case of the petitioner that no other counterfoil bearing the same number has been produced by any other person. After the Impugned order was served on the petitioner, the petitioner was taking steps to collect the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being the prize money for the counterfoil from respondents 1 and 2. It is his case that in spite of his best efforts the 2nd respondent passed an order only on 30-3-1992 to issue a cheque for Rs. 88,000/- and the cheque was actually sent to 3rd respondent only on 6-4-1992 vide letter dated 6-4-1992 by 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner was fully engaged in getting the prize money for the counterfoil he could not immediately approach this Court for necessary relief. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the first respondent dated 29-1-1992 is totally arbitrary and is not in accordance with law, that the first respondent has not even conducted a personal enquiry before passing his order and the impugned order is in total violation of Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Raffle Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner having no other effective efficacious alternative remedy approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
6. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the order of the first respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the well established principles of natural justice, that the same is in gross violation of natural justice as admittedly the first respondent has not given any opportunity or conducted any personal enquiry before rejecting the claim of the petitioner, that the respondents 1 & 2 ought to have made a thorough enquiry before rejecting the claim of the petitioner and that on the other hand, the first respondent erred in rejecting the claim on a frivolous ground that a small portion in the right end of the ticket was not produced by the petitioner. The first respondent ought to have seen that the petitioner produced the torn ticket neatly pasted and the portions which bear the numbers of the ticket and other important materials are intact. It is also the contention of the petitioner herein that the reason assigned by the first respondent that genuineness of the ticket could not be verified on account of failure to produce the vital portion of the ticket which contained the security mark is untenable and that the said objection was raised only for the first time in the impugned order. It is also his case that even the order of the 2nd respondent does not disclose that the missing portion contained the security mark and in the absence of that the genuineness of the ticket could not be verified. Therefore the rejection of the petitioner's claim in the impugned order is totally arbitrary. It is also his case that the reasons assigned by the first respondent for rejecting his claim that a small portion of the torn ticket was missing and hence the genuineness could not be verified is untenable when especially other portions of the ticket will clearly prove the ticket number and other particulars. It is also his case that there is no rival claim whatsoever to the prize winning ticket and in as much as there is no other rival claim with respect to the raffle ticket in question, the respondents ought to have accepted the claim of the petitioner. Further according to the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner's claim for counterfoil was accepted by the respondents will strengthening the case of the petitioner that the ticket produced by him is a genuine one. It is also his grievance that in this case, the respondents have not done any verification as per Rule 36b but rejected the claim of the petitioner on certain untenable grounds. They also contend that the respondents can withhold the payment of prize money only when there is no claim for the prize money or the claim is found not genuine. It is also contended by the petitioner herein that as per Rule 20, the petitioner is entitled to get 10% of the prize amount as bonus for the counterfoil which will come to about Rs. 2,50,000/-. Whereas in this case, the first respondent directed to pay only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner and hence the impugned order is not in accordance with Rule 20.
7. The contra in the counter affidavit inter alia it is contended by the respondents that the Government in their G.O. Ms. No. 264 Finance (Raffle) Department dated 15-3-1990 have ordered that fixed amount be given as bonus to agents as well as sellers and that the bonus amounts so fixed are printed in the tickets themselves invariably and accordingly the counter foil bonus for the 1st prize of Rs. 25 lakhs for the said draw was fixed as Rs. 1 lakh and this was also printed in the ticket on the reverse. It is their case that as per Rule 36(A), claims for prizes for mutilated/tampered/torn/disfigured/ forged tickets shall be rejected except in cases where it is possible to verify the genuineness of the ticket and that during verification if it is found that the genuineness of the ticket cannot be established, the claim shall be rejected, and that the decision of the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffle shall be final and binding. Therefore according to them, it is the bounden duty of the Raffle ticket purchasers to produce the prize winning tickets in support of their claim in good condition. This department cannot be held liable for the non-production of the prize winning ticket in good condition by its purchasers. It is also their case that the petitioner was requested in letter dated 3-9-90 of the 2nd respondent, to produce the seller's counterfoil and the missing piece at the right end of the ticket for examining the genuineness of the ticket. It was not produced by him and hence the prize claim was rejected. It is also contended by the respondents that he was given ample time, notice and opportunity to prove the genuineness of the ticket, by producing the missing portion which contained the security marks, put be failed, to make use of it by producing the vital portion of the ticket. They also contend that in this case, the genuineness of the ticket could not be established in the absence of the right and piece of the prize winning ticket and hence it was rejected. Further it is also their case that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1215 Finance (Raffle) dated 10-11-89 under Rules 20(B) and 20(C) of the Tamil Nadu Raffle Rules, the holder of the counterfoil of the original prize winning ticket is eligible for the bonus whether he is an agent or seller or any other person holding the counterfoil and produces the same. Based on this the petitioner's claims of bonus has been paid by this respondent. Thus it is their strong contention that the impugned order is valid in law.
8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties the following are the admitted facts in this case. The petitioner is holding a Raffle ticket that won a prize amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. But that is found torn and the same was produced before the respondents claiming the prize money by pasting all the torn pieces. However, some pieces of the ticket are missing. After some time, subsequently he found the counter foil of the ticket also and claimed money for the said counter foil. While his claim is Rs. 2,50,000/- being the 10% value of the prize money, the respondents have allowed him only Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order rejecting the above claim of the petitioner herein.
9. In this case it is significant to note that the prize amount shall not be paid to the holder of the ticket without the actual production of the prize winning ticket as a proof. That being so it is the bounden duty of the Raffle ticket purchasers to produce the prize winning tickets in support of their claim in good condition. But admittedly in this case the entire ticket has not been produced before the respondents and even according to the petitioner a negligible portion of the ticket was missing. But it is the contention of the respondents herein that what is missing is a vital portion of the ticket which contained the security marks which are matched with the department counterfoil while deciding the genuineness of the Raffle ticket among other checks and that the department cannot be held liable for the non-production of the prize winning ticket in good condition by its purchasers. It is also contended by the respondents that as per the Rules, the prize amount shall not be paid to the holder of the ticket without the actual production of the prize winning ticket in full shape as a proof under any circumstances. Further it is their categoric case that in this case the genuineness of the ticket could not be established in the absence of the right end piece of the prize winning ticket and hence his claim was rejected. Further they have also made clear in this case that he was given ample time, notice and opportunity to, prove the genuineness of the ticket by producing the missing portion which contained, the security marks. But admittedly that was not produced by him. That apart coming to the payment of bonus amount for counter foil it is clearly stated by the respondents that the bonus amounts so fixed are printed in the tickets themselves invariably and accordingly the counterfoil bonus for the 1st prize of Rs. 25/- lakhs for the said draw was fixed as Rs. 1 lakh and this was also printed in the ticket on the reverse. Therefore, in this regard also the petitioner herein cannot have any grievance. Thus 1 see every force in the contentions raised by the respondents.
10. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of my above discussion with regard to the various aspects of this case and also in view of the lone decision relied on by the petitioner. I do not see any merit whatsoever in the various contentions raised by the petitioner challenging the impugned order. Thus the petitioner also failed to make out any case in his favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. Therefore the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits.
11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.