Gauhati High Court N.V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. on 21 June, 2002 Equivalent citations: (2003)2GLR686 JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Being adventurist by nature, man has, generally, opted to take risks. Being unable to bring under control his instinct for greed, man has been indulging in adventurist activities, which may make him own worldly materials. Thus, a combined instinct of adventurism and greed has always drawn man to gambling and betting. Though detested from time immemorial, gambling and betting have continued, sometimes, on account of man's failure to win over his instinct of adventurism and greed and, sometimes, at the initiative taken by others to draw man to gamble in order to reap benefits. Lottery has been one of such forms of gambling since 100 B.C. It was Cheung Leung of China's Hun Dynasty, who created game of lottery of keno to raise funds for his army in the year 100 B.C. By drawing his wartired people to indulge in this game of chances, he not only made them contribute to his army, but also helped fund the Great Wall of China. As a game of chance, lottery became nothing but a kind of gambling. Unable to bear the resultant ruinous effects on human families, a hue and cry was raised against organized private lotteries. The State had to become alive to the situation. Thus, began banning of lotteries by States, which brought the subject of lottery for an effective decision to the precincts of the Courts. 2. In the State of Haryana v. Suman Enterprises and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 217, while dealing with banning of private lotteries by some States, the Apex Court held that the concept of lottery organized by a State would require certain basic and essential concommitants to be satisfied, because members of the public, when investing their money in such a lottery, proceed on a trust and on certain assumptions as to genuineness, bona fides, safety, security, etc. If some of the basic functions characterising a State organized lottery are delegated or abdicated by State, this public trust, according to the Apex Court, will stand impaired. The Apex Court, therefore, while laying down some guidelines for running of lotteries, observed and held as follows : "These, prima facie, appear to us to be the minimum characteristic of a lottery which can be claimed to be 'organized' by the State. If the basic and essential features indicated above are ensured, it might be possible to raise a presumption that the lottery is one that could be said to have been 'organized' by the State itself and not one merely authorised by the State under which the so called 'agent' himself organises the lottery." 3. Acting upon the guidelines so issued by the Apex Court, the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (hereafter referred to as "the said Act"), came into force for enabling States to organize lotteries in accordance with the guidelines and conditions precedent laid down in Suman Enterprises (supra). No wonder, therefore, that in order to remove lottery completely from being treated as a gambling or betting. Section 2(6) of the said Act defines lottery as a scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons, who participate in the chances of receiving prizes by purchasing tickets. The definition of lottery, contained in Section 2(b), also clarifies that it is immaterial in what form and by what name a lottery is run. 4. With the above preferatory remarks, let me, now, come to, and deal with, the present writ petition. Briefly stated, writ petitioners case runs as follows : The petitioner is a private Limited Company with the petitioner No. 2 as its director. By an agreement executed, on 10.10.1997, between petitioner No. 1 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as distributor in respect of Arunachal Pradesh State Lottery for a period of five years. Thereafter, by orders, dated 18.9.2001 and 21.9.2001, the respondent No. 1 extended the said agreement for another period of five years with some additional terms and conditions appended to the original agreement, dated 10.10.1997, clearly laying down that the Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as sole distributor for selling of all Arunachal Pradesh Lottery tickets throughout India for another period of five years with effect from 10.10.2002 to 9.10.2007. The respondent No. 1 has been organizing lottery since long through the petitioner No. 1 Company and after receiving the extension as aforesaid, the petitioners, acting upon the agreement, dated 10.10.1997, appointed their stockists, agents, subagents, etc., and created huge network for distribution and sale of lottery tickets organized, conducted and run by the State of Arunachal Pradesh throughout the country and, in the process, provided employment, directly as well as indirectly, to 2000 persons, whose livelihood depends on lottery. Even after coming