Kerala High Court
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions (P) Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 28 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2004KER248, 2004(2)KLT461, AIR 2004 KERALA 248, (2004) 3 KHCACJ 24 (KER), (2004) 2 KER LT 461, (2004) 3 RECCRIR 389
Author: K. Padmanabhan Nair
Bench: K. Padmanabhan Nair
JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. As common issues arise in these Writ Appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.
2. Writ Appeal No. 2044 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C) No. 35368 of 2003, Writ Appeal No. 2079 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C). No. 35253 of 2003, Writ Appeal No. 2083 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C) No. 37260 of 2003 and Writ Appeal No. 44 of 2004 arises from W.P.(C). No. 35606 of 2003. W.P.(C). No. 35368 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 35606 of 2003 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with connected cases through a common judgment dated 17.11.2003. W.P.(C). No. 35253 of 2003 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the light of and in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 35368 of 2003 and connected cases. W.P.(C) No. 37260 of 2003 also was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 5.12.2003 following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35368 of 2003 and connected cases.
3. Petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No. 35368 of 2003 are marketing agents of computerised network of On-line Lotteries of the States of Sikkim and Karnataka. Petitioner No. 2 is the sub-distributor of Arunachal Pradesh On-line Lotteries. They claim to have executed valid agreements with the above mentioned States for the marketing of On-line Lotteries throughout India. They filed the Writ Petition challenging Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and a public notice dated 8.11.2003. issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala. According to Rule 24(3), no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and the Enforcement Agency may seize such lottery tickets marketed before passing any order under Sub-rule (2). In the impugned public notice, the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala cautioned the general public that there was a distinct possibility of cheating/fraud involved in the lotteries run by other States including On-line Lotteries. The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge against Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules and upheld its validity. The challenge against the impugned notice also was rejected by the learned Singes Judge. The learned Single Judge also directed that hereafter the sale of tickets of lotteries other than Kerala Lotteries will be only after obtaining approval from the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and that Enforcement Agencies are free to enforce the rules and to close the business places run without approval. The learned Single Judge further directed the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department to consider and decide the applications submitted under Rule 24(1) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the three petitioners in the Writ Petition have filed W.A. No. 2044 of 2003.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35606 of 2003 claims to be the sole distributor of Mizoram State Lotteries in the State of Kerala. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against Rule 24(3) of the Rules and the public notice dated 8.11.2003 issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala cautioning the general public that there was a distinct possibility of cheating/fraud involved in the lotteries run by other States including On-line Lotteries. The Writ Petition was disposed of along with W.P.(C). 35368 of 2003 and other connected cases through a common judgment dated 17.11.2003. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of Rule 24(3) of the Rules and the impugned public notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.A. No. 44 of 2004.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 35253 of 2003 claims to be the sole stockist in Kerala State for the marketing of certain lotteries organised and conducted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh through the sole distributor of Arunachal Pradesh State Lotteries, M/s. N.V. Marketing Private Limited, New Delhi. The substantial prayer in the Writ Petition was for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the sale of tickets of the various series of weekly lotteries organised and conducted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh when marketed by the petitioner, his agents, dealers or sellers within the State of Kerala except in accordance with law. As per judgment dated 1st December, 2003, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition in the following terms:-
"Since similar issue is already decided in W.P.(C) No. 35368/03 and connected cases, this Writ Petition is also disposed of with the same observations and directions in the above cases".
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.A. No. 2079 of 2003.
6. The petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 37260 of 2003 are the State of Meghalaya and the All India Federation of Lottery and Allied Industries. They prayed for a declaration that Rules 3(3) and 24(3) of the Rules are ultra vires, void and unenforceable in law. They also challenged the public notice dated 3.11.2003 issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala. Rule 3(3) of the Rules provides that the Authority for the conduct of all or any particular lottery in the State of Kerala shall also be vested with the powers to monitor the sale of lotteries of other States/Union Territories or any country having bilateral agreement or treaty with the Government of India, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Rule 24(3), as already noted, provides that no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and that Enforcement Agency may seize such tickets marketed before passing any such other in this regard. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 5.12.2003 upholding the validity of Rules 3(3) and 24(3) of the Rules and rejecting the challenge against the impugned public notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Writ Petitioners have filed W.A.No. 2083 of 2003.
7. We heard the arguments of Sri.Mukul Rohtgi, learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri. Sudheer Chandra Agarwal, Senior Counsel, Sri. Anil Sivaraman, Sri. P. Sanjay, Sri. K.I. Sageer Ibrahim and Sri.M.R. Rajendran Nair for the appellants and Sri. M. Retna Singh, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of Kerala, Sri. M.K. Sucheendran, Addl.C.G.S.C. for the Union of India and Sri. M.K. Damodaran for some of the other States who are parties.
8. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1867), "basically lotteries are gambling and its business is res extra commercium; but to shed off this, State in the interest of State revenue has been finding avenues to legitimate it through some legitimisation under the law to eliminate the impediments in collecting the State revenue and dilute, if possible, the exploitation of the people". The Honourable Supreme Court further stated thus:
"50. From the references from Dharamshastra, opinions of distinguished authors, references in the Encyclopedia Britannica and Boston Law Review and others, we find that each concludes, as we have observed, lottery remains in the realm of gambling. Even where it is State sponsored still it was looked down as an evil. Right from ancient time till the day all expressed concern to eliminate this, even where it was legalised for raising revenue either by the King or in the modern times by the State. Even this legitimisation was for the purpose of raising revenue, was also for a limited period, since this received condemnation even for this limited purpose. All this gives clear picture of the nature and character of lottery as perceived through the conscience of the people, as revealed through ancient scriptures, also by various Courts of the countries".
The above nature and character of lottery have to be borne in mind while considering and deciding the issues raised in these Writ Appeals.
9. In view of the provisions contained in Article 246 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which is referred to as the "Union List" and the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or a part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which is referred to as the "State List". Entry 40 in the Union List is "Lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State". Hence only the Parliament has got power to make laws with respect to "Lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State". Entry 34 in the State List is "Betting and gambling". Hence only the Legislature of a State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to "Betting and gambling".
10. The Parliament enacted the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") "to regulate the lotteries and to provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto". According to Section 3 of the Act, save as otherwise provided in Section 4, no State Government shall organise, conduct or promote a lottery. According to Section 4, 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;
(b) the State Government shall print the lottery tickets bearing the imprint and logo of the State in such manner that the authenticity of the lottery ticket is ensured;
(c) the State Government shall sell the tickets either itself or through distributors or selling agents;
(d) the proceeds of the sale of lottery tickets shall be credited into the public account of the State;
(e) the State Government itself shall conduct the draws of all the lotteries;
(f) the prize money unclaimed within such time as may be prescribed by the State Government or not otherwise distributed, shall become the property of that Government;
(g) the place of draw shall be located within the State concerned;
(h) no lottery shall have more than one draw in a week;
(i) the draws of all kinds of lotteries shall be conducted between such period of the day as may be prescribed by the State Government;
(j) the number of bumper draws of a lottery shall not be more than six in a calendar year; (k) such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Thus, the State Governments are prohibited from organising, conducting or promoting any lottery otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act and a State Government opting to organise, conduct or promote a lottery is bound to do so only subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 4 of the Act.
11. Section 5 of the Act confers power on a State Government to prohibit within the State, the sale of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by every other State. In B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Act, held that a State could exercise the power under Section 6 to prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organised or conducted or promoted by other States only if it decided not to have any lottery within its territory including its own lottery. The provision contained in Section 5 of the Act was read down to the above extent by the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the State of Kerala is conducting its own lotteries. Hence, it cannot be disputed that the State of Kerala cannot invoke the power under Section 5 of the Act to prohibit within the State the sale of tickets of a lottery organised or conducted or promoted by other States. Apart from S.5, there is no other provision in the Act conferring power on a State Government to prohibit within the State the sale of tickets of a lottery organised or conducted or promoted by other States.
12. However, Section 6 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to prohibit a lottery organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provision of Section 4 or where tickets of such lottery are sold in contravention of the provisions of Section 5. Section 6 is attracted in two contingencies. First, when a lottery is organised, conducted or promoted in contravention of the provisions of Section 4. Second, where tickets of a lottery are sold in contravention of any prohibition issued by the State Government under Section 5 of the Act.
13. Section 7 of the Act prescribes the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and Section 8 makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. Section 9 deals with offences under the Act committed by companies. Section 10 provides that the Central Government may give directions to the State Government as to carrying into execution in the State of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule or order made thereunder.
14. Section 11 confers power on the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. However, admittedly, the Central Government have not yet made any rules in exercise of the power under Section 11 of the Act.
15. Section 12 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.
16. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act, the Government of Kerala have made the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules 2003. Rule 1 of the said Rules relates to the Short Title, Application and Commencement of the Rules. Rule 2 deals with the definitions. Rules 3 to 23 generally deal with the organising and conduct of State Lotteries and On-line Lottery by the Government of Kerala. However, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 states that the Authority for the conduct of all or any particular lottery in the State shall also be vested with the powers to monitor the sale of lotteries of other States/Union Territories or any Country having bilateral agreement or treaty with the Government of India in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Rule 24 deals with the sale of other State On-line Lotteries and other Lottery Tickets in Kerala. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 24, any other State or Union Territory or any Country having bilateral Agreement or Treaty with the Government of India organising, conducting or promoting Lottery as per Section 4 of the Act, shall submit to the Taxes Department of Government of Kerala through the Director of State Lotteries, the documents and details mentioned in the said Sub-rule, before starting the sale through On-line Lottery/other Lotteries. As per. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24, the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department shall decide as to whether the scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders. As per Sub-rule (3), no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and Enforcement Agency may seize such tickets marketed before passing any order in this regard. As per Sub-rule (10) where the Government either suo motu or on a complaint in that behalf are satisfied after verifying the necessary information that sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other State is in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, it may temporarily suspend the sale of such tickets within the State and report the matter to the Government of India seeking its final order in the matter under Section 6 of the Act. For the sake of convenience, Rule 24 of the Rules are extracted hereunder:
"24. Sale of other State On-Line Lotteries and other Lottery Tickets in Kerala.-
(1) Any other State or Union Territory or any Country having bilateral Agreement or treaty with Government of India organising, conducting or promoting Lottery as per Section 4 of the Act, shall submit to Taxes Department, Government of Kerala through the Director of State Lotteries, the following documents and details before starting the sale through On-line Lottery/other Lotteries namely:-
(a) the details as per Section 4 of the Act.
(b) copy of the rules, if any, made under Section 12 of the Act.
(c) specimen Ticket shall be submitted with name of the On-line Lottery/other Lotteries and type of scheme, order of draws along with details of the prize structure of every scheme and any subsequent addition or deletion to the scheme made from time to time.
(d) details of the Agents, sub-agents or selling agents appointed for selling its Lottery Tickets in the State and the cancellation and fresh appointment thereof.
(e) details of methodology for conducting the draw by the concerned State Government/Country and details of Prize Winners of each scheme.
(f) details of the designated Authority or body entrusted to conduct the lottery draw by the concerned State Government/Country.
(g) details of the procedure for publishing the Lottery results.
(h) any other relevant information as directed by the Authority so as to enable it to verify that the scheme is conducted as per the provisions of the Act, (2) In the absence of complete details the Authority may return the scheme to the concerned State Government/Country, directing to furnish the complete details within a period of 15 days. The Authority shall verify all the details furnished and send report to Secretary to Government, Taxes Department who shall assess the report independently taking into account various other information available with him from the Commercial Taxes Department, Police or any other source if any, and decide as to whether the scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders.
(3) No Lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) above are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department. Enforcement Agency may seize such Tickets marketed before passing any order in this regard.
(4) The Enforcement Agency may-
(a) seize for the purpose of further examination or securing information or investigation any Lottery, thing, machine, document, account books or data excluding proprietary software, on or in such premises or facility which has bearing on conduct of On-line Lottery,
(b) seal or otherwise secure any such premises, facility, thing or machine or in which any document or data which has bearing on the conduct of On-line Lottery is stored.
(c) take such legal action as per the Act, which may be necessary to protect the integrity and conduct of On-line Lottery.
(5) The Other States or Union Territories or any Country having bilateral Agreement or treaty with the Government of India while selling the Lottery Tickets in the States shall ensure the following, namely,-
(a) In Lottery Tickets issued by the Government of other States, the name of the agents in any form or their logo shall not be printed.
(b) The results of the prize Winners shall be announced by the Government of other States, which results alone shall be reproduced in the news papers by the agents and the agents shall not publish the results on their own or in a form or method of their own.
(c) the particulars of the prize winners shall be furnished every month to the Authority, after furnishing copy of the same to the Director of concerned State Lotteries.
(6) Respective State Governments shall also obtain prior approval of the Authority for its sub-agents/retailers for point of sales in the State by furnishing all relevant details. Such sub-agents/retailers shall satisfy the following qualifications/requirements, namely,-
(a) he must have completed eighteen years of age.
(b) proof of credit worthiness should be furnished.
(c) place of business should not be in the near vicinity of educational institutions/religious institutions like temple, church, mosque and the like.
(d) place of business shall be with clear title on ownership or lease or rent.
(e) Government of Kerala should not have been blacklisted him in the last three years.
(f) person should not have been convicted for any criminal offence in the last three years for any offence with imprisonment of six months or with fine of rupees five thousand only or with both.
(7) If any other State On-line Lottery is approved by the Government for sale within the State, it shall require the respective State, their agent or its sub-agent/retailer to allow the Authority or any Officer authorized by him or Enforcement Agency to, -
(a) enter any premises or facility belong to or under the control of the agent or a member of the management of the agent or any sub-agent/retailer Or employee of contractor of the agent or premises to which agent has a right of access, at a reasonable time, if such entry is necessary for the public interest or protection of the integrity and interest of the On-line Lottery.
(b) examine or inspect anything, machine, document or data captured in any form excluding proprietary software, found on or in the premises or facility and make copies of or make extracts from that thing, machine, document or data.
(c) to take copies of any document, including any information kept by the agent or sub-agentor retailer relating to the On-line Lottery or all other ancillary activity within the State.
(d) assist to inspect and take copies of the information in a visible and legible form from the Computer or to inspect and check the operation of any Computer, and any associated apparatus or materials, that is or has been in use in connection with the keeping of information.
(8) No other State selling their tickets in the State of Kerala shall use a name of prefix or suffix in the name of a Lottery (e.g. Kerala, name of the cities and town or any such other name which can be used as a prefix or suffix or otherwise) which could mislead people to believe that the said Lottery is organised, conducted or promoted by Government of Kerala and where the State Government is satisfied that such use is misleading or is likely to mislead people to believe that the lottery is run or conducted by the Government of Kerala, the Government may cause seizure of such Tickets, within the State of Kerala through its Enforcing Agency.
(9) Any agent selling Lottery Tickets of any particular draw should have in possession, a copy of the certificate issued by the Assessing Authority to the effect that the licensing fee in respect of the draw has been paid to the Government and they shall show it to the Enforcement Agency whenever it is demanded. On non-production of such certificate, Enforcement Agency is empowered to seize such tickets.
(10) Where the Government either suo-motu or on a complaint in that behalf are satisfied after verifying the necessary information that sale of tickets in the State of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other State, is in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, it may temporarily suspend the sale of such tickets within the State, and report the matter to the Government of India seeking its final order in the matter, under Section 6 of the Act".
17. In the light of the above mentioned statutory provisions we shall now consider the contentions of the parties. The first contention of the appellants is that the lotteries marketed by them are lotteries organised by the Governments of other States in India and therefore in view of Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry 40 in the Union List, only the Parliament has power to make laws with respect to the conduct or marketing of those lotteries and consequently the Government of Kerala is not competent to make a rule like Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 which provides that no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and that the Enforcement Agency can seize the tickets marketed before passing any order in this regard. According to the appellants Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is therefore unconstitutional. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is only part of the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 made by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. The said Act was enacted to regulate the lotteries and to provide for matters, connected therewith and incidental thereto. The provisions of the Act govern lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by State Governments. Section 12 confers power on the State Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. Hence the above mentioned Rules including Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 were made by the Government of Kerala with competence and jurisdiction and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is not unconstitutional as contended by the appellants.
18. The next contention of the appellants is that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. According to the appellants the Government of Kerala is conducting its own lottery and therefore, the Government of Kerala is not competent to invoke the power under Section 5 of the Act and to prohibit within the State the sale of tickets of lottery organised, conducted or promoted by the other States. It is contended that the provision contained in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 amounts to prohibition of the sale of tickets of lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by other States, till appropriate orders are passed under Sub-rule (2) by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department permitting the sale of tickets of those lotteries. It is also contended that Section 5 or any other Section of the Act does not authorise the Government of Kerala to impose such a prohibition and that, what is not authorised by the provisions of the Act cannot be done through the Rules made under Section 12 of the Act. However during the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have no grievance about the provisions contained in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24. According to Sub-rule (2) if the details furnished by any other State or Union Territory under Sub-rule (1) are not complete the Authority under the Rules may return the Scheme to the concerned State Government directing to furnish complete details within a period of 15 days. The Authority shall verify all the details furnished and send report to the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department who shall assess the report independently taking into account the various other information available with him from the Commercial Taxes Department, Police or any other source if any and decide as to whether the Scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have no objection to the above provisions in Sub-rule (2). Their objection is to the stipulation in Sub-rule (3) that no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department and that the Enforcement Agency can seize such tickets marketed before passing any order in this regard. The contention is that the above stipulation amounts to prohibition of sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by another State whereas even under Section 5 the Government of Kerala cannot impose such a prohibition and hence Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. We do not find any merit in this contention. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 does not impose any prohibition as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. Sub-rule (3) and the other sub-rules of Rule 24 contain only regulations to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. According to Section 3 of the Act no State Government shall organise, conduct or promote any lottery, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 4. Thus there is a statutory prohibition against organising, conducting or promoting lottery without complying with the conditions stipulated in Section 4. In other words, every State organising, conducting or promoting any lottery is bound to comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 4. Since the Act extends to the whole of India, the Government of Kerala also is bound to enforce the provisions of the Act within the territory of the State and to ensure that any lottery including its own lottery organised, conducted or promoted by a State Government is in strict compliance with the conditions stipulated in Section 4 of the Act and does not violate any provision of the Act. For discharging this constitutional and statutory duty of the Government of Kerala, it was constrained to make the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003. Thus Rule 24 was made in respect of lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by the other States or Union Territories or countries having bilateral agreement with the Government of India. Even according to the appellants they have no objection to the requirement of submitting necessary documents and details to the Taxes Department, Government of Kerala through the Director of State Lotteries before starting the sale through On-line lottery and other lotteries. They have also no objection to the provision enabling the Authority to return the Scheme to the concerned State Government directing to furnish the complete details within a period of 15 days. They have still no objection to the provision in Sub-rule (2) enabling the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department to decide as to whether the Scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders. Their objection is to the provision in Sub-rule (3) which says that no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department. They contend that they are entitled to market the lottery in the State without any order under Sub-rule (2). It is also contended that, if the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department finds that the Scheme does not satisfy all the provisions of the Act, he can only report the matter to the Central Government and it is for the Central Government to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In our view, it is illogical and unreasonable to contend that even before the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department decides that the Scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act the other State Governments and their agents should be allowed to market or sell the tickets within the State of Kerala. It will only facilitate the violation of the statutory provisions and make the State Government impotent to prevent such violations. Hence the said contention is against the object and spirit of the Act. The provision in Sub-rule (3) preventing the other State Governments and their agents from marketing their lottery within the State of Kerala before appropriate orders passed by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department under Sub-rule (2), is only a regulatory measure to ensure that no lottery is conducted within the State of Kerala in violation of the provisions of the Act. The provisions in the Constitution of India or in the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 do not prevent the Government of Kerala from making a rule like Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is well within the Rule making power of the Government of Kerala recognised by the provisions of the Act. The object of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is only to carry out the provisions of the Act and to ensure that no lottery is conducted by any State Government within the State of Kerala without complying with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 enables and authorises the Government of Kerala to discharge its constitutional and statutory duty to enforce the provisions of the Act within the State of Kerala. The said duty of the Government of Kerala implies that the Government of Kerala should:
(a) Ensure that every lottery, conducted, by it or other States, is conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
(b) Take effective steps to prevent contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
(c) Take prompt action against those who contravene the provisions of the Act.
It is to discharge the said duty that the provisions of Rule 24 were incorporated in the Rules. The said duty of the Government of Kerala has been recognised by Parliament while incorporating Section 12 in the Act, by which power is conferred on the State Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. It is to be noted that Rules 3 to 23 have been incorporated in the Rules to ensure that even the lottery of the Government of Kerala is conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Rule 24(3) does not confer on the State Government any power or function which is not recognised by or is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. We are also of the view that the provisions of Rule 24 are not arbitrary or unreasonable and that such regulatory provisions are necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act and to ensure that no lottery is conducted in violation of the provisions of the Act. As already stated, the provision that no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate orders under Sub-rule (2) are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department is only to prevent any contravention of the provisions of the Act. The power conferred by Section 12 to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act includes also the power to make rules to prevent contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is also to be noted that in spite of the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Central Government have not yet made any rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. In fact the Government of Kerala deserves to be complemented for the prompt action taken to make the rules in exercise of the power conferred by Section 12 of the Act. Hence we hold that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 is not ultra vires the provisions of the Act.
19. Another contention of the appellants is that the Government of Kerala cannot under the guise of the Rules framed under Section 12 of the Act, prevent the other States or their authorised agents from marketing their lottery and selling the lottery tickets within the State till permission is granted by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, Government of Kerala under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules. It is contended that what cannot be done directly under Section 5 is sought to be done indirectly under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24. There is no merit in this contention also. The contention is based on a wrong assumption that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 envisages a prohibition similar to the prohibition contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. What is contemplated under Section 5 of the Act is a total prohibition of the sale of tickets of any lottery organised or conducted or promoted by any State including the State which imposes such prohibition. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. (supra), it is open to a State Government to take a policy decision as to whether it should organise, conduct or promote a lottery of its own. The said discretion of a State Government is not affected by the provisions of the Act. If it decides to organise, conduct or promote its own lottery, it is not entitled to invoke the power under Section 5 and to prohibit within the State the sale of tickets of lottery organised, conducted or promoted by other States. On the other hand, if it decides not to organise, conduct or promote its own lottery, it is entitled to invoke the power under Section 5 and to impose a total prohibition of sale of tickets of any lottery organised, conducted or promoted by every other State. It is not such a prohibition that is envisaged under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 only provides that before another State/Union Territory markets its lottery and starts the sale of tickets within the State of Kerala it shall convince the Secretary, Taxes Department, Government of Kerala that the scheme of its lottery satisfies all the provisions of the Act. As stated earlier, it is only a regulatory measure to ensure that, no lottery is organised, conducted or promoted without complying with the conditions mentioned in Section 4 of the Act. .In other words, it is a regulatory provision in furtherance of the provision in Section 3 which directs that no State Government shall organise conduct or promote any lottery otherwise than in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Once the State Government concerned satisfies the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, Government of Kerala that its scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act, the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, Government of Kerala is legally bound to pass appropriate orders permitting the concerned State Government to market its lottery and to sell the lottery tickets within the State of Kerala. Hence it is not correct to say that what cannot be done directly under Section 5 of the Act is sought to be done indirectly under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules.
20. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 2083 of 2003 have challenged Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules. For convenience Rule 3 is quoted below:
"3. Conduct of State Lottery:-
(1) The Director of State Lotteries or any Authority specifically appointed by the Government for this purpose will be the Authority for the conduct of all or any particular lottery in the State. The authority shall implement the State Lottery according to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
(2) The Authority may appoint an agent or a number of agents to establish, conduct, and promote all or any of its lottery schemes and do all or any of the functions related to the conduct of a lottery, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Act and these rules.
(3) The authority shall also be vested with the powers to monitor the sale of lotteries of other States/Union Territories or any Country having bilateral agreement or treaty with the Government of India, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder".
Whatever we said in respect of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 are equally applicable to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 as well. The only power conferred on the Authority by Rule 3(3) is to monitor the sale of lotteries of other States/Union Territories in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. This also is a provision intended to ensure that the sale of lotteries of other States and Union Territories, as in the case of the sale of lotteries conducted by the State of Kerala, is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The said provision has been incorporated in the Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and in furtherance of the object of the Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is not ultra vires the provisions of the Act. We are of the view that the said provision is not illegal, unjust, arbitrary or unreasonable.
21. Learned counsel for one of the appellants contended that Sub-rule (10) of Rule 24 also is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and unconstitutional. No such specific contention is seen raised in the Writ Petitions from which the Writ Appeals arise. Hence we are not bound to consider the said contention in these Writ Appeals as there is no specific challenge as such against Rule 24(10). However we are inclined to deal with the said contention of the learned counsel since such a contention is specifically raised in W.P.(C). No. 418 of 2004 which also was heard along with these Writ Appeals. The grievance raised by the learned counsel is against the provision in Sub-rule (10) which confers a power on the State Government to temporarily suspend the sale of tickets within the State if, after verifying the necessary information, the Government are satisfied that sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other State is in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The suspension contemplated under Rule 24(10) is only a temporary measure and it will be in force only till the Government of India gets sufficient time to consider the report of the State Government and takes a final decision under Section 6 of the Act. If the Central Government is not satisfied that there is contravention of the provisions of Section 4 or Section 5 the Central Government will drop further action in the matter and the suspension will be automatically lifted. Thus the provision contained in Sub-rule (10) of Rule 24 also is a regulatory measure to enforce the provisions of the Act and in furtherance of the object of the Act and to prevent the continued contravention of the provisions of the Act. The suspension under Sub-rule (10) of Rule 24 does not amount to a prohibition similar to the one contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore Sub-rule (10) of Rule 24 is not ultra vires the provisions of the Act or unconstitutional. It is also not arbitrary or unjust.
It was further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that if the Government of Kerala found that the scheme of the another State did not satisfy all the provisions of the Act or that the lottery was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Government of Kerala could only bring it to the notice of the Central Government requesting the Central Government to take action under Section 6 of the Act. In other words, the contention is that the Government of Kerala itself cannot prevent the marketing of the lottery and the sale of the tickets within the State of Kerala on the ground that the scheme does not satisfy all the provisions of the Act. It is contended that if one State Government conducting its own lottery is allowed to decide whether the scheme of another State satisfies all the provisions of the Act, it will violate the principles of federalism conceived in the Constitution of India. These contentions also are devoid of merit. When the provisions of the Act apply to the State of Kerala and when the State of Kerala has a constitutional and statutory duty to enforce the provisions of the Act within the State of Kerala and when Section 12 of the Act has conferred power on the Government of Kerala to make Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act, the Government of Kerala is right and justified in providing for an authority and a procedure to verify whether the scheme of the lottery satisfies all the provisions of the Act, before the lottery is marketed and the tickets are sold within the State of Kerala. If such a provision is not made in the Rules by the Government of Kerala, it would be abdicating its power and duty and acting against the object arid spirit of the provisions of the Act.
23. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. (supra) lotteries are a form of gambling. They are pernicious in nature. Gambling activities are in its very nature and essence extra commercium. They were considered to be a sinful and pernicious vice by the ancient seers and law givers of India. They have been deprecated even by the laws of England, Scotland, United State of America and Australia. Even when the lottery was State sponsored it was looked down upon as an evil. Right from the ancient time till now all expressed concern to eliminate this evil, even when it was legalised for raising revenue either by the King or in the modern times by the State. Even this legitimisation was for the sole purpose of raising revenue and the legitimisation was for a limited period, since the legitimisation received condemnation even for the said limited purpose. As further pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 70 of the above decision, what makes lottery pernicious is its gambling nature. Even in the State lotteries the element of chance remains with no skill. It remains within the boundaries of gambling. The stringent measures and the conditions imposed under the State lotteries are only to inculcate faith to the participant of such lottery, that it is being conducted fairly with no possibility of fraud, misappropriation or deceit and assure the hopeful recipients of high prizes that all is fair and safe. That assurance is from stage one to the last with full transparency. No doubt, holding of the State lotteries for public revenue has been authorised and legalised and once this having been done it is expected from the State to take such measures to see that people at large, faithfully and hopefully participate in larger number for the greater yield of its revenue with no fear in their mind. By virtue of Section 4(d) of the Act, it is further ensured that proceeds of the sale of such lottery tickets are credited to the public accounts of the State. This is to give clear message to the participants that the proceeds are not in the hands of individual group or association but is ensured to be credited in the State Accounts. But all these by itself would not take the State lottery outside the realm of gambling. It remains within the same realm. In this regard there is no difference between a lottery under Entry 34, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and a lottery organised by the State under Entry 40 of List I of the Seventh Sqhedule. When the character of the State organised lotteries and the other lotteries remains the same, the mere placing of the apparel of the State with authority of law, would not make any difference. It remains to be gambling.
24. In view of such pernicious nature of even a State lottery, it is very essential in public interest to provide for authorities and procedure to monitor its conduct in the State and to ensure that even a State lottery is conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Therefore, no State Government can claim any right to market its lottery and to start the sale of tickets within the State of Kerala even before convincing the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department that the scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act. If such a right is conceded to any State it will defeat the very object of the Act. The Parliament would not have envisaged a situation in which the State Government have to helplessly watch the continued violation of the provisions of the Act within its territory and indefinitely wait for the action of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Act. The Central Government have not even made the rules in exercise of its power under Section 11 of the Act. Merely because another State Government is required to satisfy the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, Government of Kerala that the Scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act, no violation of the principles of federalism is involved. Federalism does not mean that one State can organize or conduct activities in another State in violation of the provisions of the Act and that its activities cannot be subjected to scrutiny or monitoring by the other State to ensure that the provisions of the Act are complied with. The provision contained in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 directing that no lottery shall be marketed until appropriate order under Sub-rule (2) are issued by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, does not affect the right of another State to organise, conduct or promote lottery and to sell its tickets outside the territory of Kerala. The regulation or restriction in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 applies only within the State of Kerala and, that too, to enforce the provisions contained in the Act made by Parliament and to ensure that the conduct of any lottery and the sale of its tickets within the State of Kerala are in compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Under the guise of federalism, another State cannot claim the right to violate the provisions of the Act within the State of Kerala and contend that such violations of the provisions of the Act may be reported to the Central Government for action under Section 6 of the Act. When violation of the provisions of the Act is committed or apprehended, the Government of Kerala cannot be made to throw up its hands in helplessness and to wait for the Central Government to prohibit the lottery under Section 6, after much damage has been done. The principle of federalism cannot prevent the Government of Kerala from taking appropriate and necessary action to prevent the violation of the provisions of the Act within its territory.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants then contended that since the Government of Kerala also is conducting its own lottery and is a rival of the other States in the lottery business, it is unjust and unfair to allow the Government of Kerala to confer on itself the power to decide whether the Scheme of another State satisfies all the provisions of the Act. We are not impressed by this argument also. We do not expect a statutory authority of the level of the Secretary to Government, to take decisions in an arbitrary or biased manner and without due regard to the statutory provisions and without respect for the Rule of Law. Even if the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, takes an illegal or unjust decision, it is not the last word and it can be subjected to judicial review at the instance of the aggrieved party. The mere possibility of the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department taking a wrong or illegal or unjust decision, does not make the provisions contained in Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 24 illegal or arbitrary or unjust.
26. It was contended that the provisions 6f Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 24 could not be made applicable to the existing lotteries which were marketed in the State of Kerala before the coming into force of the Rules on 16.7.2003. We do not find any justification for such classification. Once the Rules have come into force, the organising, conducting or promoting of any lottery thereafter in the State shall be governed by the provisions of the Rules. Merely because certain lotteries of other States were marketed before the coming into force of the Rules and no action was taken against them, it does not mean that the Scheme of those lotteries satisfies all the provisions of the Act. After the coming into force of the Rules any other State or Union Territory organising, conducting or promoting the lottery is bound to comply with and is governed by the provisions contained in Rule 24 of the Rules.
27. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government of Kerala have collected huge amounts from the appellants towards sales tax and licence fee and therefore it is illegal and unjust to force the appellants to close down their business. Sales tax and licence fee are collected under the provisions of the relevant law. Payment of sales tax or licence fee does not authorise anybody to conduct business in violation of the provisions of the Act. The appellants can conduct their lotteries and market them in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of existing lotteries no time is provided in Rule 24 to submit the documents and details mentioned in Sub-rule (1) and to obtain the order of the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department under Sub-rule (2). However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General no injustice was done to the appellants since action was taken under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 only after a period of three months from the coming into force of the Rules. Hence the appellants got sufficient time to comply with the provisions of the Rules.
29. The challenge of the appellants against the public notice dated 8.11.2003 issued by the Director of State Lotteries, Kerala has no legal basis. Under Rule 3(1) of the Rules the Director of State Lotteries is the Authority for the conduct of all or any particular lottery in the State and he shall implement the State lottery according to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under Rule 3(3), he is vested with the powers to monitor the sale of the lotteries of other States/Union Territories in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Hence the Director of State Lotteries is not only competent but also expected to warn the general public against the lotteries conducted or the tickets sold in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In the impugned notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries he stated that it was brought to his notice that several private individuals were operating illegal single digit lotteries in the State. He also referred to the statutory provisions contained in the Lotteries (Regulation) Act and the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2003 and cautioned the general public that since the authenticity and legality of the lotteries run by other States, including On-line Lotteries, were yet to be confirmed and authorised by the State of Kerala, there was a distinct possibility of cheating/fraud involved in such lotteries. We do not find anything wrong or illegal in the action of the Director of State Lotteries in issuing such a public notice. In our view, such a public notice was issued in the interest of the general public.
30. We are also of the view that the provisions in Rule 24 of the Rules and the impugned public notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries should be seen in the particular context of these cases. As already stated, a lottery, even if conducted by the State, is gambling. Whoever keeps any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery not being a State lottery or a lottery authorised by the State commits an offence under Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code. Only State lotteries and lotteries authorised by the State are exempted under Section 294A I.P.C. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Director of State Lotteries had valid and sufficient reasons to think that most of the lotteries conducted by other States and marketed and sold in the State of Kerala are not actually organised or conducted or promoted by the State but are conducted by private individuals or companies. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to the order of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Enterprises and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 217, in which the minimal characteristics of a lottery which can claim to be organised by the State were indicated by the Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, the concept of a lottery organised by a State would require certain basic and essential concomitants to be satisfied as, indeed, members of the public when investing their money in such a lottery proceed to a trust and certain assumptions as to the genuineness, bona fides, safety, security, rectitude of administration etc. associated with governmental functions. If some of the basic functions characterising a State organised lottery are delegated or abdicated by the State, this public trust is impaired. The first of those requirements is that the tickets which bear the imprint and logo of the State must be printed by or directly at the instance of the State Government so as to ensure their authenticity and genuineness and further to ensure that any possibility of duplication of the ticket and sale of fake ticket is provided against and rendered impossible. Secondly, the State itself must sell the tickets though, if it thinks necessary or proper so to do, through a sole distributor or selling agents or several agents or distributors under terms and conditions regulated by the agreement reached between the parties. The sale proceeds of the tickets either sole in retail or wholesale shall be credited to the funds of the Government. Thirdly, the draws for selecting the prize winning tickets must be conducted by the State itself irrespective of the size of the prize money. Fourthly, if any prize money is unclaimed or is otherwise not distributed by way of prize, it must revert to and become the property of the State Government. The learned Advocate General further pointed out that the above requirements have been incorporated in Section 4 as conditions subject to which a State Government may organise, conduct or promote a lottery. According to the Advocate General, most of the lotteries claiming to be State lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by other States did not satisfy the above mentioned requirements specified by the Supreme Court and the conditions mentioned in Section 4 and therefore they are not entitled to be treated as State Lotteries. He invited our attention to the pleadings and materials placed on record to substantiate the above contention. Learned Advocate General submitted that in such a situation, the Director of State Lotteries was justified in issuing the impugned public notice in the interest of the general public. We find force in the above submission of the learned Advocate General.
31. The situation mentioned in the earlier paragraph justifies the need for provisions like Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules. In view of the allegation that most of the lotteries claiming to be State lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by other States are not really organised or conducted or promoted by Other States but by private individuals and companies, it is all the more necessary that there must be an authority and a procedure as contemplated in Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 24 to decide as to whether the scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act and to pass appropriate orders. It is also necessary in public interest that unless and until the Authority is satisfied that the scheme satisfies all the provisions of the Act, the marketing of the lottery should not be permitted within the State of Kerala. In the light of the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Kerala and the Director of State Lotteries in W.A. No. 2044 of 2003 and the materials placed on record to substantiate the allegation that most of the lotteries are conducted in violation of the provisions of the Act, we are of the view that the question whether the lotteries marketed by the appellants are actually lotteries organised, conducted or promoted by other States as claimed and whether the scheme of the lottery satisfies all the provisions of the Act requires proper scrutiny and serious consideration by the authorities under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules. The appellants cannot shy away from an enquiry into the above aspects and they are bound to co-operate with such an enquiry if they desire to market their lotteries in the State of Kerala.
32. Learned Advocate General contended that Writ Petition No.35368 of 2003 and W.A. No. 2044 of 2003 were filed by private companies and not by the State conducting the lotteries and that they had no locus standi to file the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal. As we have considered the claims of all the appellants on merits and have held against them, we find it unnecessary to go into the question of locus standi.
33. The learned Advocate General also contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute between the State of Kerala and the other States and that under Artilce 131 of the Constitution of India, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ranchi Timber Traders Association and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 276. This objection of the learned Advocate General was countered by the learned counsel for the appellants relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1970 SC 1446 and Union of India v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1984 SC 1675. In view of the fact that we have considered the claims of the appellants on merits and have decided against them, we are not inclined to consider the above objection raised by the learned Advocate General in these cases.
34. However, we find unnecessary to refer to one relevant aspect brought to our notice by the learned Advocate General. It was stated by the learned Advocate General that during the pendency of these cases, a report dated 12.1.2004 was sent by the Government of Kerala to the Central Government seeking action under Section 6 of the Act against those who are conducting the lottery in violation of the provisions of the Act; but no decision has so far been taken in the matter by the Central Government till date. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the said report sent by the Government of Kerala, the Central Government issued notices to the appellants to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Section 6 of the Act. It was also submitted that the appellants had sought and were granted extension of time to submit their explanations. The above position was confirmed by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. The result is that in spite of the report of the Government of Kerala containing allegations and materials against the lotteries conducted in violation of the provisions pf the Act, there has not been any effective action by the Central Government and on the strength of the interim orders passed in these cases, the appellants have been conducting the lotteries, allegedly in violation of the provisions of the Act, for several months. In view of the interim orders passed by this court, the Government of Kerala and its officers could not take any effective action under Sub-rules (3) and (10) of Rule 24 of the Rules. The above situation supports and strengthens the argument of the learned Advocate General that as provided in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24, no lottery shall be allowed to be marketed until appropriate orders are passed by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Departmenf under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 and that the Enforcement Agency should have the power to seize the tickets marketed before passing any order in this regard.
35. For the reasons stated above, we hold that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and Sub-rules (3) and (10) of Rule 24 of the Rules are valid. We also hold that there is nothing wrong or illegal in the action of the Director of State, Lotteries in issuing the impugned public notice dated 8.11.2003. We further hold that the appellants are bound to comply with all the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules while marketing their lotteries and selling the tickets within the State of Kerala. We have not considered the correctness or legality of any decision taken by the Secretary, Taxes Department, Government of Kerala under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules in the case of any of the appellants, as it is beyond the scope of these appeals. If any of the parties is aggrieved by any such decision taken or order passed by the Secretary to Government, Taxes Department under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules, it will be open to him to challenge the decision/ order in appropriate independent proceedings.
36. In the above circumstances, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. The interim orders are vacated.