Allowed

K.Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2023WP(C)/7358/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a lottery licence holder seeking an order to supply 45,000 tickets daily upon restoration of his licence. The Court observed there is no rigid statutory or contractual rule mandating a specific daily allotment and directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2nd respondent within one week for expedited consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the 2nd respondent within one week, to be considered after hearing and decided within two weeks.

K.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.UNNIKRISHNAN, U.K.HOUSE,
U.K.HOUSE, PUNNAPPALA, THIRUVALI, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA-679 328
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN
SMT.NISHA GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, (DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERIES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001

¶10

2THE DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES,
DIRECTORATE OF STATE LOTTERIES, VIKAS BHVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
3THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER,
DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-679
001

¶11

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

SMT. ANN MARIA FRANCIS, SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner seeks that respondents be

¶18

directed to issue him 45,000 lottery tickets a
day, based on Ext.P1 licence.

¶19

2.Smt.Ann Maria Francis – learned counsel

¶20

for the petitioner, conceded that there were
certain earlier proceedings against her client,
which has now been resolved and that his licence
has been restored; and hence that he is now
entitled to be supplied the afore number of
tickets, as had been contractually promised to
him. He thus prays that this writ petition be
allowed.

¶21

3.Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George - learned

¶22

Government Pleader, in response, submitted that

¶23

there is no inflexible rule - either
contractually or statutorily - that every
lottery agent should be issued with a particular

¶24

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

number of tickets every day. He submitted that,

¶27

contrary to the afore insinuation of the
petitioner, his supply of tickets has not been
reduced, but that he has been afforded the

¶28

numbers depending upon the availability. He
submittedthat,initially,after the

¶29

petitioner’s licence was restored, he was issued
4,500 tickets a day, which was enhanced to 7,500
and further increased to 24,000 every day, as of
now. He submitted that this is not because there
was any upper cap fixed for the petitioner’s
allotment, but only because the number of
lottery tickets for distribution all over
Kerala became insufficient. He, however, added
that if the petitioner requires, 2nd respondent
can consider his claims and take an apposite
decision thereon, without any avoidable delay.

¶30

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

4.I must say that the afore suggestion of

¶33

Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George - learned Government
Pleader, is the best available to the petitioner
also because, the question regarding the quantum
of allotment of tickets to him, will certainly
have to be decided by the said Authority,
particularly when I cannot find, from any of the
pleadings or documents on record, a rigid
prescription that every licensee must be issued
with a certain number of tickets every day.

¶34

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

¶35

writ petition, granting liberty to the

¶36

petitioner to make an appropriate representation
before the 2nd respondent; and if this is done
within a period of one week from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall
be considered, after affording him an
opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in

¶37

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

an appropriate order and necessary action
thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than two weeks thereafter.

¶40

 Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

SAS

¶44

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7358/2020

¶47

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶48

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER ON 31.` `LOTTERIES`	`IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `12.2018 BY THE KERALA STATE`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM DATED`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE,` `23.01.2018`
`EXHIBIT P2A`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM DATED`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE,` `27.01.2018`
`EXHIBIT P2B`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM 31/01/`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE,` `2018`
`EXHIBIT P2C`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM 01/02/`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE,` `2018`
`EXHIBIT P2D`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM 05/02/`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE,` `2018`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE HON` `MAGISTRATE, NILAM`	`ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 16.2019` `'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS` `BUR`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 31.08.2018`	`G.O(RT) NO.642/2018/TAXES`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 27.09.2018`	`G.O(RT) NO.701/2018/TAXES`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `2992915/H1/2018/T` `THE GOVERNMENT TO`	`COMMUNICATION/ ORDER NO.` `.D.DATED 06.07.2019 ISSUED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE OF THE ORDER` `22.07.2019 ISSUED`	`NO S1/43612/2018 DSL DATED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM DATED`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE` `07.11.2019`
`EXHIBIT P8A`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE LOTT` `MALAPPURAM DATED`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE` `ERIES DISTRICT OFFICE` `18.11.2019`
`EXHIBIT P8B`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE`

¶49

WP(C) NO. 7358 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

KERALA STATE LOTTERIES DISTRICT OFFICE
MALAPPURAM DATED 24.02.2020
EXHIBIT P8CTRUE COPY OF THE SALE INVOICE ISSUED FROM THE
KERALA STATE LOTTERIES DISTRICT OFFICE
MALAPPURAM DATED 25.02.2020
EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2019 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 13.02.2020 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 26.05.2018
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
20.06.2018 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
31.10.2019

K.Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan S Vs Murali

K.Kannan Vs the Managing Director

K.Kannan Vs the Kerala Water Authority, Represented by Its Managing Director

Shihabudeen. P Vs District Registrar (General) & District Registrar (Audit)

Marysadan Edathala International Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer

Sujith C.M. Vs M/S.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.