From Our Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI, May 11: In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Centre’s challenge for maintainability of Meghalaya’s suit challenging provisions of Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and affirmed that the state is entitled to take the matter forward on merit.
“We are not inclined to accept the contentions urged by the Union of India and some of the states, including the State of Kerala, that this suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution,” a Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar observed while determining the ambit of the dispute.
“…the State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298B and its executive powers to do so is subject to Parliamentary legislation which is Act of 1998. The grievances raised in that context would constitute disputes falling squarely within the four corners of Article 131,” the Bench observed.
The Attorney-General for India, R Venkatramani had raised a preliminary objection on maintainability. He was joined in his submission by counsels of some other state governments.
Meghalaya and Sikkim had approached the top court against the decision to ban their state lotteries in other states. The disputes emanate from the power conferred on state government by the Centre under Section 5 of the Act to prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted, or promoted by any other state.
The Attorney General had informed the Bench that there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court on whether a suit is maintainable to challenge a statutory provision. Eventually, it was referred to a larger Bench and he indicated that the decision of the larger Bench be awaited. Considering his submissions, the Bench agreed to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability.
With respect to the plea to await the decision of the reference before the larger Bench, the Division Bench noted that even if the decision of the larger Bench is to be awaited, it cannot be so that the suit is stayed in its entirety. In this regard the Bench referred to Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (stay of suit) as a reasonable guiding light. Reliance was also placed on the Apex Court’s judgment in Indian Bank versus Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation.
In this regard the Bench concluded that interim relief such as order of injunction does not have to await the outcome of the reference before the larger Bench. It noted, “Even if final determination of the question of maintainability in case the constitutional validity of the provisions is to be decided may depend upon decision of the larger bench, the supplemental proceedings in the present suit especially the ones relating to interim relief cannot be put on hold.”
In view of the same, the Bench granted four weeks’ time to the contesting defendants to file their response in relation to the interim relief.
The case will be heard after the summer vacation.