Gauhati High Court
The State Of Mizoram Rep. By The Chief ... vs M/S. Teesta Distributors A Registered ... on 3 May, 2019
Author: A.S. Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Arup Kumar Goswami
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010094602019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA 112/2019
1:THE STATE OF MIZORAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM, NEW SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, AIZAWL,
MIZORAM, PIN- 796001.
2: THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPTT. (ADMINSTRATIVE HEAD)
NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING AND NEW CAPITAL COMPLEX
ROAD KHATIA AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
3: THE COMMISSIONER FINANCE DEPARTMENT
AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
4: THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MIZORAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
5: THE DIRECTOR INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE AND STATE LOTTERY
AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001
VERSUS
1:M/S. TEESTA DISTRIBUTORS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT T-19 (D), PEACE
VILLA, BESIDES PWD BUILDING, TUIKHUAHTLANG, AIZAWL, MIZORAM-
796001, AND REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI RATNESH KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN- 110001.
3:M/S. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.7 RAYALA TOWERS
GR. FLOOR 781-785 (NEW NO. 158 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI PIN- 600002.
4:M/S. N. V. INTERNATIONAL
E-217 1ST FLOOR GREATER KAILASH-I NEW DELHI PIN- 110048
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S S DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Linked Case : WA 113/2019
1:THE STATE OF MIZORAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM NEW SECRETARIAT COMPLEX AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
2: THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING AND NEW CAPITAL COMPLEX ROAD KHATIA AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
3: THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF MIZORAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
VERSUS 1:BIG STAR G SERVICES LLP HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO. G2 RODALEE APARTMENT ZOO NARENGI ROAD GUWAHATI- 781024 ASSAM REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI M SIVA KUMAR.
2:SRI ZORAMTHANGA THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF MIZORAM AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI PIN- 110001.
4:M/S. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., 7 RAYALA TOWERS GR. FLOOR 781-785 (NEW NO. 158) ANNA SALAI CHENNAI PIN- 600002.
5:M/S. N. V. INTERNATIONAL E-217 1ST FLOOR GREATER KAILASH NEW DELHI PIN- 110048.
6:M/S. TEESTA DISTRIBUTORS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT T-19 (D) PEACE VILLA BESIDES PWD BULDING TUIKHUAHTLANG AIZAWL MIZORAM PIN- 796001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S S DEY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I CHOUDHURY Page No.# 3/4
- BEFORE-
Hon'ble the chief justice Mr. A.S. Bopanna Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arup kumar Goswami 03-05-2019 (A.S. Bopanna, CJ) Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.112/2019, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.113/2019 and Mr. D. Baruah, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for the respondent No.2 in Writ Appeal No.112/2019 and for the respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal No.113/2019.
The appellants are before this Court assailing the common order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2669/2019, WP(C) No.2666/2019 and the other connected petitions. The petitioners therein were before the learned Single Judge assailing the Notification dated 15.04.2019 [Annexure-Q to Writ Appeal No.112/2019], contending that the manner in which the Notification had been issued would affect their subsisting right to carry on the lottery in the manner provided therein.
The learned Single Judge having referred to the contentions has stayed the second part of the Notification dated 15.04.2019. The State, which is one of the respondents in the writ petitions and also the architect of the Notification dated 15.04.2019, is before us in these appeals assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned senior counsel for the appellants while assailing the order would contend that the very right, which had been granted to one of the petitioners, namely, M/s Teesta Distributors, under a contract had come to an end and the continuation of running the lottery by issuing the necessary details in that regard is based on the communication dated 28.05.2018 and in such circumstance, the right could not be claimed. It is his contention that even otherwise it is not the distribution of state largess but is a matter of contract, where the question of contending that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution does not arise.
Page No.# 4/4 The learned senior counsel representing the respective respondents who were the petitioners before the Court below would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the above backdrop, at the outset, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellants are before this Court in this intra-Court appeal against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. To that extent, having taken note of the Notification dated 15.04.2019, we find that the arrangement made by the appellant State through the said Notification is in respect of the six online draws vacated by M/s Ecool Gaming Solutions, which has been re-allocated to the three entities, who are distributors, one of them being a writ petitioner. While doing so, the additional draw, which has been re-allocated, has been permitted to be conducted in paper or online.
In that circumstance, in a matter where the contentions urged in the writ petitions are yet to be decided and in that background when the learned Single Judge had exercised the discretion by the interim order and on that aspect when at the outset we notice that the appellant State through the Notification dated 15.04.2019, while taking a decision to re-allocate the six online draws, had made a change with regard to the manner in which the other draws would be conducted by allowing it to be conducted in paper or online and in that light one of the writ petitioners, who presently is conducting the lottery in paper is aggrieved, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in exercising the discretion in the manner in which it has been done to prevent that part of the order, whereby the petitioner had claimed that its right is affected.
In that circumstance, we are of the opinion that an interim order in the present nature would not call for interference in the instant appeals. Accordingly, the appeals being devoid of merit stand disposed of.
All contentions on merits in any event are left open to be urged in the pending writ petitions.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant