31 of 1998 State of Nagaland v. U.O.I. and Others stayed me order of the Government of Delhi directing implementation of the aforesaid order passed by the Delhi High Court.
20 promulgated on 1st October, 1997 and also challenged the Notification dated 30th September, 1997, issued by Government of Gujarat, banning the instant lotteries within the State w.e.f.
15978 of 1998 is filed by the State of U.P. against an interim order of Guwahati High Court staying the Ordinance No.
670 of 1998.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP c No.
Similar matter also came in the Delhi High Court, when it, by means of interim order dated 3rd December, 1997 in Civil Writ Petition No.
is against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by an agency of State lottery Manipur holding such dispute between the State of Manipur and State of U.P. companyld only be decided by the Supreme Court.
Civil Appeals arising Out of SLP Nos.
Thereafter, on 30th April, 1998 the Delhi High Court observed that the Delhi Government may move the appropriate forum against this order of the Guwahati High Court, This led to filing of Transfer Petition by the National Capital Territory of Delhi in this Court being Transfer Petition No.
and others, an amendment was sought to challenge the aforesaid 1998 Act as it substituted the earlier Ordinance.
16021, 16617, 17566 and 17782 of 1998 are all filed against the interlocutory orders passed by the Guwahati High Court staying Section 4 a , g , h , Sections 5 and 7 of the Central Act No.
21304 21307 of 1997 as against the aforesaid interim order passed by the Guwahati High Court staying the Ordinance in which this Court directed the State of U.P. to move the Gauhati High Court.
This last Ordinance was also challenged along with Notification dated 29th October, 1997 of State of U.P. in Civil Rule 2315 of 1998 Ms. Jyoti Agencies Anr.
226 of 1998 is also filed in this Court by the Government Lottery Agencies and Sellers Association Regid.
One of the grounds raised by the petitioner before the Gujarat High Court was that the State numberification dated 30th September, 1997 was issued even before the Ordinance which came into force on 2nd October, 1997, hence without authority of law.
Thereafter, various State Governments including the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland as Weil as other distributors filed writ petition challenging the legality and validity of Section 4 a , f , g , i , Section 5 and Section 7 of the said 1998 Act being ultra vires.
In a Writ Petition No.
17566 of 1998.
Except for Section 5 of the Ordinance, in which some modification was brought through this Act, to which we shall be referring to later, other provisions remained the same.
A Writ Petition C No.
The Guwahati High Court on 30th March, 1998 in Miscellaneous Case No.
10357 of 1998 is filed by the State of U.P. against an order passed by the Allahabad High Court companyfirming the interim stay order.
On 17 July, 1998 the High Court of Guwahati observed that the provisions, under challenge, of this Act as well as provisions of the Ordinances being pairi materia and since provisions of the Ordinances have already been struck down by that Court, hence, granted stay of the aforesaid provisions including the numberification of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and other States.
Andhra Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court to this Court.
3296 of 1998 State of Nagaland v. Union of India Ors.
and another challenging the aforesaid Ordinances 20 and 31 of 1997 including the numberification issued by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi pursuant to the power companyferred under Section 5, During the pendency, the Parliament enacted the Lottery Regulation Act 17 of 1998 repealing/ substituting the earlier Lottery Regulation Ordinance of 1997.
It held, so far manipur lotteries, unless it was declared to be State lottery, the petitioner has numberlocus standi, hence writ was dismissed.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
before the Gauhati High Court which was also stayed by means of interim order dated 22nd May, 1998.
before the Guwahati High Court, The Guwahati High Court by order dated 10th July, 1998 stayed the provisions of Section 4 a , g , h , j Sections 5 and 6 of the 1998 Act and also the aforesaid numberifications issued by the State of U.P. Even SLP against this order has been filed before this Court being SLP C No.
Another Civil Appeal arising out of SLP c No.
1st November, 1997.
5105 of 1997 disagreed with the view of the Guwahati High Court and agreeing with the view of the Gujarat High Court, declined to stay the impugned Ordinance.
October, 1997 dismissed the petition holding that instant lottery is gambling and can be restrained by the State Government.
2200 of 1997 filed before the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench by M s. Ganga Agencies Manipur State Lotteries , the High Court ordered that so long the interim order of the Gauhati High Court is operative the sale of lottery tickets shall be permitted to be sold in U.P. this Court finally disposed of SLP C Nos.
In the aforesaid writ petition filed by the Government Lottery Agencies and Sellers Association Regd.
17/98.
21304 21307 of 1997 Civil Appeal No.
The first and third Of these SLPs are filed by the State of U.P. and the second by Government of N.C.T. of Delhi.
Hence, the Stale Ordinance remained in operation within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
10356 of 1997 B.R. Enterprises V. State of UP, Anr.,
These also challenge either the Ordinances or Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 ActNo.
This Act along with Notifications dated 29th October, 1997, 17th March, 1998 and 20th April, 1998 of the State of U.P. were challenged in Civil Rule No.
17 of 1998 hereinafter referred to as 1998 Act .
The Gujarat High Court by its judgment and order dated 24th.
15978 of 1998 has been filed against this order by the State of U.P. The Ordinance No.
The Gujarat Lottery Sellers Association has challenged the companystitutional validity of the Ordinance No.
This order was passed as an interim measure.
v. Union of India Ors.
Aggrieved by this, the aforesaid Civil Appeal raising out of SLP C No, 22423 of 1997 was filed.
For proper appreciation of the submissions of learned companynsels for the parties, we herewith quote Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act, which are the subject matter of challenge A State Government may organise, companyduct or promote a lottery subject to the following companyditions, namely a prizes shall number be offered on any preanounced 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 ensure c the State Government shall sett 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 companyduct the draws of all the lotteries f the prize money unclaimed within such time as may be prescribed by the State Government or number otherwise distributed, shall become the property of that Government g the place of draw shall be located within the state companycerned h numberlottery shall have ntore than one draw in a week the draws of all kinds of lotteries shall be companyducted between such period of the day as may be prescribed by the State Government G the number of bumper draws of a lottery shall number be more than six in a calendar year k such other companyditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
17/98 hereinafter referred to as Lotteries Act .
6 of 1998 third ordinance has finally rolled into the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 No.
Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P c No.
