IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1670 of 2010() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29163/2010 DATED 22/09/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------- 1. ABRAHAM JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, KARUKARAYIL HOUSE, PARAL, VAZHAPPALLY WEST, CHANGANASSERY. 2. SURENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 48, SABARIGIRI THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY. 3. P. SASIKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, LEXMI NILAYAM, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., MADHUMOOLA, CHANGANASSERY. 4. SAJIMON, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 35, THOTTIPARAMBIL, PUZHAVAHU, CHANGANASSERY. 5. NAVAS. M.H, S/O.HAMEED BAVA RAVUTHAR, AGED 43, ORAVAYIL PUTHUPPARAMBIL, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., KADAMANCHIRA, CHANGANASSERY. 6. BAIJU. T.A @ MAJEED, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 42 YEARS, THOTTUPARAMBIL PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANASSERY. 7. D. SAJEEV, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KULATHUNGAL VEEDU, MALANGUNNAM VEEDU, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR, SRI.ASWA KUMAR. WA.No. 1670 of 2010 RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF LOTTERIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-679 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-679 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01. R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVT. PLEADER TAXES MR.VINOD CHANDRAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.No.1670 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Petitioners in WP(C).29163/2010 are the appellants before us. Though they are lottery sellers, they sought an order that Ext.P9 Government Order is contrary to the provisions of Sections 4(h) and 4(j) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”. The learned single Judge dismissed it. Hence, this appeal. 2.A learned single Judge decided WP(C).25632/2010, inter alia, holding that in the scheme of the Central Act, there is a regulation in such a manner that a State can have only one lottery draw per week. The Government of Kerala had, at that point of time, more than 7 lotteries. In the judgment, the learned single Judge had also indicated that the State Government cannot adopt WA1670/10 -: 2 :- a different stand. The Government apparently issued a decision stating that it will run only 52 ordinary draws and 6 bumper draws in an year. This is the content of the impugned Ext.P9. The State Government did not express anything in Ext.P9 as if on an interpretation of Sections 4 (h) and 4(j) of the Central Act. This is the maximum permissible limit. At any rate, we do not lead Ext.P9 to contain any such expression of an executive decision. We, therefore, have necessarily to take it that Ext.P9 contains only the decision of the Government of Kerala to conduct only 52 ordinary draws and 6 bumper draws. The plea of the petitioners/appellants is essentially for a direction or a declaration that in term of law, the State Government/Government of Kerala can conduct more number of lotteries than fixed in Ext.P9. This is not a matter that could be ironed out through the judicial review. There is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error on the face of Ext.p9 which warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the WA1670/10 -: 3 :- Constitution of India. 3.Though we have also heard a bunch of writ appeals arising from the judgment in WP(C).25632/2010, the decision that may be rendered in those writ appeals would have no impact either way, in the legal sense of the matter, on the right or privilege of the State Government to decide that it will run only 52 draws and 6 bumper draws in an year. That is entirely a matter within the executive making decision of the State Government. In this view of the matter also, we do not find any infirmity in Ext.P9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal is meritless. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Sha/1410 Judge.