9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 278 - HC - Indian LawsRequest for proposal (RFP) for selection of distributors for conventional paper and online lotteries - conversion of the distributorship from online lottery to paper lottery - HELD THAT - Lottery includes gambling as anelement of chance which requires no skill and as held by the Apex court it would not attain the status of trade like other trades or become res commercium. Accordingly, 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. The petitioner is not entitled to objectand be heard by the respondent No. 1 while taking the impugned decision. The impugned decision dated 12.09.2018 does not in any manner injure the interest of the petitioner recognized by law. The inpugned decision was taken within the stipulated terms of the contract to which the petitioner is not a signatory - petition dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner's locus standi. 3. Conversion of online lottery distributorship to paper lottery. 4. Alleged violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 5. Specific performance of the contract. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The petitioner did not participate in the tender process initiated by the respondent No. 1 for the selection of distributors for conventional paper and online lotteries. The respondent No. 3 and other bidders participated, and agreements were executed between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner cannot challenge the impugned decision dated 12.09.2018 permitting the conversion of the distributorship from online lottery to paper lottery of the respondent No. 3. 2. Petitioner's Locus Standi: The petitioner is a stranger to the agreement between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner did not participate in the tender process and, therefore, cannot raise grievances alleging discrimination or arbitrariness in the selection process citing violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot ask for specific performance of a specific term in the agreement as he is not a signatory to it. 3. Conversion of Online Lottery Distributorship to Paper Lottery: The conversion of the distributorship from online lottery to paper lottery was based on the representation dated 29.08.2018 by the respondent No. 3, which was approved by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The agreement allowed the Government to change the lottery scheme on a request made by the sole distributor. The impugned decision was within the stipulated terms of the contract. 4. Alleged Violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: The petitioner argued that the conversion from online lotteries to paper lotteries without inviting fresh tender violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the court held that lotteries are considered gambling activities, which do not attain the status of trade like other trades or become res commercium. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to invoke Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India seeking protection of his fundamental right for carrying on trade and commerce of the State lotteries. 5. Specific Performance of the Contract: The petitioner sought the enforcement of the contract between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The court held that once the State enters into an ordinary contract with an individual citizen, the relations are governed by the contract and its terms, not by constitutional provisions. The petitioner, not being a signatory to the agreement, cannot seek specific performance of the contract. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the impugned decision allowing the respondent No. 3 to convert the online lottery distributorship to paper lottery. The court found no violation of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner's request for specific performance of the contract was untenable. The interim order passed was vacated.
|
