Disposed

Titi R Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2024WP(C)/1037/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A registered lottery agent claimed discrimination in ticket allocation against large-scale agents. The court found no small-versus-large distinction, accepted the respondents' classification based on regularity of purchase, and disposed of the petition with directions for the petitioner to buy tickets as per Ext.P4 for two weeks and then seek an increase.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to purchase tickets per Ext.P4 for two weeks; thereafter he may seek an incremental increase from the 3rd respondent, to be considered per Ext.R2(b) Circular and acted on within two days.

Titi R Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

TITI R THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS,
KOOTTUMGAL(H), LENIN NAGAR, MANNUTHY POST,
THRISSSUR DISTRICT, KEERALA STATE, PIN – 680651.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SHIBIN K.F.
SEBY JOSEPH
GISON ALIYAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, ROOM NO. 396 FIRST FLOOR,
NEAR SOUTH CONFERENCE HALL, MAIN BLOCK,
SECRETARIAT, PIN – 695001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR THE DIRECTORATE OF KERALA STATE LOTTERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003.

¶13

SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is stated to be a

¶19

registered Lottery Agent, complains that he has
not been given enough tickets to sell; thus
being discriminated against viz-a-viz other
lottery agents, particularly ‘large-scale one’.
He thus prays that the respondents be directed
to grant him at least 300 lottery tickets drawn
daily, so as to enable him to sell the same and
eke out his livelihood.

¶20

2.In response to the afore submissions of

¶21

the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel –
Sri.Shibin K.F., the learned Government Pleader

¶22

- Smt.Vidya Kuriakose, submitted that, as
evident from Ext.R2(b) Circular, only those
agents who buy tickets regularly can be given an
incremental increase in the quota; but that the
petitioner has been very irregular in purchasing
tickets and selling them.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶24

3.Smt.Vidya Kuriakose submitted that there

¶25

is no discrimination between ‘small agents’ and

¶26

‘large agents’, as has been alleged by the
petitioner; but that he must show his bona
fides, by purchasing tickets at least in the
manner stated in Ext.P4 for a few weeks, before
he can seek an increase. She submitted that, if

¶27

the petitioner proves his bona fides in such
manner, he can certainly be given the liberty to
approach the competent Authority for an increase
in the number of lottery tickets, which will be

¶28

considered in terms of law, particularly as per
Ext.R2(b) circular.

¶29

rightly argued by Smt.Vidya Kuriakose, it speaks
about the manner in which lottery agents are to

¶30

be favoured with tickets. It creates a

¶31

categorization of agents, not as being ‘small’
or ‘large’ as alleged by the petitioner, but as

¶32

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶33

being those who are regularly purchasing tickets

¶34

and those who are not. As said above, the

¶35

learned Government Pleader asserts that the
petitioner falls into the latter category, and
therefore, he will have to show his bona fides
by acceding to Ext.P4 – which, in fact, is a
reply given to a lawyer notice issued by him –
by purchasing 300 tickets in the ‘fifty-fifty’
category mentioned therein, along with 50 weekly
lottery tickets; and that, if this is done for a
few weeks, then his request for an incremental
increase can be considered.

¶36

5.I cannot find the afore explanation of
the respondents to be in error or illogical

¶37

because, as long as there is no distinction
between ‘small lottery agents’ and ‘large
lottery agents’, as now affirmed by the learned
Government Pleader, the classification between
those who are regularly purchasing tickets and

¶38

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶39

those who are irregularly purchasing tickets,

¶40

cannot be found to be untenable or
unconstitutional.

¶41

certainly limited; while the demand is much
higher. The Authorities will surely have to
prescribe some criteria under which the tickets

¶42

are distributed for sale. Therefore, when they
say that they prefer those who purchase tickets

¶43

regularly, I cannot find fault with it.

¶44

Sri.Shibin F.K. - learned counsel for the
petitioner, whether his client would like to
abide by Ext.P4 for at least two weeks, and then

¶45

seek an incremental increase of the tickets
before the competent Authority. He acceded to
the same.

¶46

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶47

writ petition with the following directions:

¶48

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶49

as per Ext.P4 and to purchase tickets as
mentioned therein.

¶50

Ext.P4 and is found to have purchased tickets
regularly under it for at least a period of two

¶51

weeks, then he will be at full liberty to

¶52

approach the 3rd respondent – District Lottery
Officer, for an increase in the number of his
tickets, which shall be considered by the said
Authority, taking into account his purchase
pattern and Ext.R2(b) Circular; thus culminating
in an appropriate order and necessary action
thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than two days from the date on which
he makes a request for such purpose.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

akv

¶57

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶58

-7-

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1037/2024

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

EXHIBIT-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
LOTTERY AGENCY CERTIFICATE, DATED 03-
12-2003
EXHIBIT-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
MEMBERSHIP PASSBOOK, DATED 31-08-
2009, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
LOTTERY AGENTS AND SELLERS WELFARE
FUND
EXHIBIT-P3A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE,
DATED 12-12-2023
EXHIBIT-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE
EXHIBIT-P3 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT AND DATED 15-12-2023
EXHIBIT-P5A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, DATED
05-12-2019, IN WP(C) NO. 28064 OF
2019 (2019:KER:73173) I

¶62

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶63

EXHIBIT R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE TICKET PURCHASE
REPORT OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.SLTY/360/2020-SI DATED 11-12-2020
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF STATE
LOTTERIES
EXHIBIT R2(C)TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY PURCHASE
RECORDS OF AGENTS AT THE DISTRICT
LOTTERY OFFICER THRISSUR
EXHIBIT R2(D)TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.SLTY/5215/2023-S2 DATED 27-11-2023
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF STATE

¶64

WP(C) NO. 1037 OF 2024

¶65

-8-

¶66

LOTTERIES

¶67

EXHIBIT R2(E)TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.SLTY/221/2022-S2 DATED 20-01-2022
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF STATE
LOTTERIES

Titi R Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Titi R Thomas 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

Rency George Vs Mohammed Ali

M.K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Agnes Michale Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

M/S.Ekk Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Kerala

Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil Vs Central Board of Film Certification

M. J. Joy and Company Vs Chief Engineer (Nw)