The Gauhati High Court held that the lottery includes gambling as an element of chance that requires no skill and it would not attain the status of the trade.
The petitioner, Big Star G Services LLP is involved in the lottery business having its infrastructure required for performing as a distributor of lottery tickets both conventional paper lottery and online lottery in any State of India.
The respondent through its Secretary, Department of State Lottery published a ‘request for proposal’ (RFP) for the selection of distributors of conventional paper and online lottery. In the said RFP, it was provided that the interested bidders may submit bid separately for each set of draws either for paper lottery or for online lottery or both.
The respondent authority submitted its tender for two sets of online lottery and another party. Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd along with other parties participated in the said RFP. The respondent was selected for an online lottery and in terms of the offer made by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh the respondent No. 3 accepted its appointment as distributor of online lottery.
Out of 3 sets of lotteries, two online sets of lotteries were allotted to respondent No. 3 as its distributor and one set of conventional paper lottery scheme was allotted to the said Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner has come to know that respondent No. 3 virtually surrendered its distributorship of online lottery submitted a representation on 11.09.2018 for being appointed as distributor of the online lottery at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per draw which was much higher than the rate of Rs. 14,000 per draw of the respondent with an alternative prayer to invite fresh tender.
Mr. Choudhury, the senior counsel for the petitioner in response to the issue of maintainability submits that the respondent and the state respondents failed to controvert the statements made in the writ petition and instead took the stand that the petitioner was a stranger so far the contracts of online lotteries were concerned and does not have the locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is totally a stranger so far the agreement entered by the respondent and the State respondent is concerned. In the representation of the respondent, it was indicated that there was a decline in the sale volume of online lottery tickets due to certain changes in the market conditions and it does not amount to surrender of the distributorship. The agreements stipulate definite contractual rights and obligations on the parties itself and as such, it is for the parties to decide whether or not to terminate the agreement based on the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
The single-judge bench of Justice Prasant Kumar Deka concluded that lottery includes gambling as an element of chance that requires no skill and as held by the Apex court it would not attain the status of the trade like other trades or become res commercium.
Therefore, the court held that the petitioner has no right to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India or under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India seeking for his protection of his fundamental right for carrying on trade and commerce of the State lotteries.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
