2022 (6) TMI 580 - HC - Indian Laws

Refund claim - burden of the draw charges had been passed on to a third party or the ultimate consumer or not - HELD THAT - The Court came to a view that it would not be correct to decide the issues raised in writ jurisdiction. Neither the Organising States nor the distributor/selling agents were made parties. The claim for refund was being made by the sole stockist of the distributor/selling agents. The sole stockist of the distributor/selling agents would have, under the scheme of the Act and Rules, no hand in the pricing structure of the cost of the lottery tickets. The learned Court was also of the view that refund of this nature cannot be granted if the burden of the draw charges had been passed on to a third party or the ultimate consumer. In an intra-Court Mandamus appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, this Court does not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. That apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition by learned Single Judge.
2. Refund claim by sole stockist of distributor/selling agents.
3. Pricing structure of lottery tickets.
4. Possibility of passing on draw charges to ultimate consumer.
5. Jurisdiction of writ court in determining complex pricing issues.
6. Necessity of parties to agreements being brought before the Court.
7. Interpretation of agreements not before the Court.
8. Limitation issue raised by State respondents.
9. Correctness of decision in writ jurisdiction.
10. Option to approach civil court for remedy.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, allowing the writ petitioners to seek remedy in the Civil Court if desired.

2. The refund claim was made by the sole stockist of distributor/selling agents, who had no role in the pricing structure of lottery tickets. The Court noted that refund cannot be granted if draw charges were passed on to a third party or the ultimate consumer.

3. The Court highlighted the complexity of determining whether draw charges were passed on to the consumer due to the intricate pricing of lottery tickets. It was deemed challenging to resolve such issues within the jurisdiction of a writ court.

4. The importance of involving all relevant parties in agreements was emphasized. The Court stated that determining the passing on of draw charges required examining agreements between parties not before the Court.

5. The State respondents raised the issue of limitation and contested it seriously, adding another layer of complexity to the case.

6. The Court concluded that deciding the issues raised in the writ jurisdiction would not be appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The writ petitioners were granted the option to seek remedy in the civil court.

7. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, as no palpable infirmities or perversities were found in the judgment and order of the Single Judge. The Single Judge's decision was supported by cogent and justifiable reasons.