Kerala High Court
Shreyaskumar Achha vs Director, State Lotteries on 14 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)KLT841
Author: K. Balakrishnan Nair
Bench: K. Balakrishnan Nair
JUDGMENT K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The first petitioner won the prize of Rs. 1 lakh for the the ticket SH 406687 of Soubhagya lottery, in Draw No. 446, held on 14.2.2004. He sent the ticket, claiming the prize amount, to the 1st respondent Director of Kerala State Lotteries, on 9.3.2004, which was received by the said Officer, on 15.3.2004. The second petitioner won the prize of Rs. 50,000/- of the Soubhagya lottery, in Draw No. 451 held on 20.3.2004. The said ticket was sent to the 1st respondent, on 27.4.2004, which was received by the said Officer, on 29.4.2004. In both the cases, the prize amounts were not disbursed in time. Hence this Writ Petition.
2. Pursuant to the interim order issued by this Court, to consider the claim of the petitioners, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P20 and P21 orders dated 13.9.2004, rejecting their claim. The petitioners amended the Writ Petition, challenging the validity of Exts.P20 and P21. They submit that the impugned orders have been issued, in violation of Rule 22(13) of the Kerala Lotteries and Online Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003. It is submitted that the first petitioner's claim for prize amount has been rejected on irrational grounds. The second petitioner's application to condone the delay in presenting the ticket was also rejected without any valid grounds and also under the dictation of the State Government. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they were not residents of the State of Kerala. The same is highly arbitrary and discriminatory, it is contended.
3. The respondents have chosen, not to file any counter affidavit in this Writ Petition. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Rule 22(1) of the above said Rule reads as follows:--
"22(1). The Government shall guarantee the prize and prize amount of lotteries."
Going by Rule 22(1), the Government are bound to guarantee the payment of prize amount of lotteries. In the case of the first petitioner, he is the holder of a prize winning ticket and he has presented it in time. So, the 1st respondent has no power or authority to reject his claim. Ext.P2 would show that on totally irrelevant grounds, prize has been declined to him. If there was transfer of ticket, involving money laundering or evasion of income tax, the 1st respondent could have informed the Income Tax Department about the same. But, in this case, the 1st respondent called for certain details from the first petitioner and entered a finding that his explanation was not satisfactory and rejected his claim for the prize amount. None of the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act or the Rules framed thereunder, authorises the 1st respondent to act in the manner, he has done in this case. Therefore, Ext.P20 is quashed. It is declared that the first petitioner is entitled to get the prize amount, provided the ticket presented by him is genuine. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the first petitioner for payment of the prize amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, in the light of the declaration of law made herein above.
4. In the case of the second petitioner, there is a delay of 9 days in presenting the ticket. The delay has been explained by him, in the following words:-
"I could not see the result in time, since results were not available with me. I kept the ticket separately in my drawer, with great difficulty and after verifying the result, I came to know that the above said ticket has won the prize of Rs. 50,000/-. I was not knowing the procedural details for claiming the prize money. It took some time for me to gather details for claiming the prize money."
The above quoted explanation has been rejected by the 1st respondent, on the ground that the results of the draws, conducted by the said respondent are promptly published by the Kerala Lotteries in national dailies and therefore, the contention of the second petitioner that he was not aware of the results in time, was not acceptable.
5. The relevant Rule, dealing with the condonation of delay is Rule 22(13), which reads as follows:-
"Prizes, which are not claimed within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the results, will not be disbursed and the prize-money of these tickets will become the property of the Government.
Provided that the Director may, upto a period of one hundred and eighty days after the draw and the Government, upto a period of one year from a draw, allow the disbursement of the prize-money if on an application by the prize-winner, the Director or the Government, as the case may be, is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that there are cogent reasons for the delayed claim, it can be accepted."
The above said power to condone the delay, conferred on the Director and the Government, is a power coupled with a duty to be exercised, when a person interested makes an application for the same. Going by the concept of power coupled with a duty, explained by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) and Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer (AIR 1971 SC 33), relying on the speech of Earl Cairns, L.C., in the House of Lords in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford ((1880) 5 AC 214), the Director is bound to consider an application for condonation of delay, if the same is made by a person interested, in accordance with law. The 1st respondent, being a Statutory Authority, should exercise the said power in a fair and reasonable manner. The Director, relying on a communication issued by the Government, rejected the claim of the second petitioner. The said communication of the Government, bearing No. 16234/H1/98/T dated 5.5.1999, was handed over to me by the learned Government Pleader, at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition, the relevant portion of which, reads as follows:-
"In the above circumstances, I am to inform you that Government have decided to put a total embargo on the Director of State Lotteries in making any payment of prize money after the expired date. This amount will go to the State Exchequer. In case of any very rare or genuine circumstances, the Director of State Lotteries may refer the same to Government. I am to request you to implement all the recommendation of the VACB immediately and Government may be kept informed of the cases of claiming prize money by persons outside the State".
The Director felt, he is bound by the above direction. But, the said direction is plainly ultra vires and unauthorised. It is for the Director to decide whether he should condone the delay upto 180 days. The Government, have no business, whatsoever, to say that he should reject the applications for condonation of delay and appropriate the amount to the State Exchequer. It is apposite in this context, to quote the words of the learned Author Professor H. W.R. Wade in his Administrative Law Eighth edition on dictation by higher-ups in the official hierarchy.
"Closely akin to delegation and scarcely distinguishable from it in some cases, is any arrangement by which a power conferred upon one authority is in substance exercised by another. The proper authority may share its power with someone else or may allow someone else to dictate to it by declining to act without their consent or by submitting to their wishes or instructions. The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, atleast in part, by the wrong authority and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void. So strict are the Courts in applying this principle that they condemn some administrative arrangements which must seem quite natural and proper to those who make them."
In view of the above legal position, Ext.P21 is ultra vires, for blindly following the dictation of the Government.
6. Gambling is a vice. The Government, while running the lotteries, are conducting gambling. But, in the matter of distribution of prize amounts, the Government should take a fair and reasonable stand, so that the lottery run by it, inspires confidence in the general public. The 1st respondent Director is also bound to act fairly.
7. The impugned order, as found earlier, is vitiated as the Director has acted under dictation and mechanically, without application of mind. He felt that he was bound to reject the application for condonation of delay and therefore, he found certain reasons to reject it. Prima facie, I feel that the explanation given by the second petitioner is a plausible one. In view of the above position, Ext.P21 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to hear the second petitioner and take a fresh decision on his application for condonation of delay, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations contained herein above, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.