1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 11.10.2001 and direct the respondents to deposit the prize amount of rupees one lakh in respect of Winning Ticket No. C 589201 purchased and claimed by the petitioner along with interest at 24% per annum from 4.7.2001.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the above' ticket and the monthly draw of Raffles was held on 4.2.2001 by the Government of Tamil Nadu through the second respondent. The petitioner's ticket was found to be the prize winning ticket. The petitioner claimed the prize amount of rupees one lakh. There was no rival claim for the said prize. The petitioner on ascertaining the fact of prize won by his ticket, he deposited the said ticket with the second respondent after getting an acknowledgment on 23.3.2001. The second respondent kept the matter pending for eight months and on 11.10.2001, the impugned order was passed stating that as per Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Raffles Rules 1976, the claim amount of the priae winning ticket made by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground "torn/disfigured and tampered tickets cannot be entertained." It is the case of the petitioner that he had presented a genuine ticket, without the same being torn or disfigured or mutilated or tampered. The same is revealed from the acknowledgment issued by the i second respondent, while collecting the prize winning ticket on 23.3.2001. Challenging the said order, the writ petition has been filed contending that as per Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Raffle Rules 1976, if the claim is made within 90 days from the date of draw after verification of the genuiness, the prize amount shall be awarded after the expiry of one month from the date of announcement of the draw results. It is also stated in the affidavit that as per Rule 36(h), the Director of Tamilnadu Raffles is the ultimate Authority to decide the issue and his decision shall be final and binding.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by stating that the prize winning Ticket presented by the petitioner on 23.3.2001 was a torn, mutilated and pasted ticket and without proper verification of the prize winning ticket presented to the second respondent for payment the genuinity of the prize winning ticket could not be identified at the time of submission of the prize winning ticket by the public. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Rule 37 was amended by reducing the period to, 60 days by,G.O. Ms. No. 209 Finance (Raffle) Department dated 20.5.1999. It is further stated in paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit that the tappal clerk acknowledged the prize winning ticket when submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner was immediately informed that the torn prize winning ticket was examined in the Section on 24.3.2001 itself and that the ticket was torn into two pieces, the serial number with that of alpha numbers are tallied and the series are visible and the prize winning ticket No. C-589201 was tallied with that of Department Counterfoil and therefore in order to, help the individual in good intention, proposals were submitted and sent to the Government on 16.4.2001 and the said request was rejected by the Government. Consequently, the impugned order was passed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rule 36(h) of the Tamil Nadu Raffle Rules' 1976 contemplates the verification of the prize winning ticket as to whether the ticket is genuine and if the genuineness of the ticket cannot be establised, the decision of the Director shall be final and binding. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner submitted the claim within 60 days as contemplated under Rule 37, as amended, and the second respondent having issued an acknowledgment of the ticket without stating that the ticket was torn, establishes the fact which was verified. The prize winning ticket was found torn after retaining the ticket for eight months. The learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner presented the ticket, it was not torn and receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the prize amount with appropriate interest.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that when the ticket itself was presented, it was torn and inspite of that the Director-the second respondent sent proposal to the Government and recommended for payment of the amount as the ticket was found genuine. The Government having rejected the same, the petitioner is not entitled to get the said amount.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the, petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It is not in dispute that the draw was held on 4.2.2001 and the petitioner's ticket bearing No. C-589201 was the prize winning ticket for rupees one lakh. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner surrendered the ticket to the second respondent on 23.3.2001, i.e., within 47 days. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent has given an acknowledgement for the receipt of the ticket on 23.3.2001, which reads as follows:
"Ticket No. C-589281
4.2.2001
Format of the acknowledgment
8. The second respondent has not explained the reason for 8 months delay in finalising the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the prize amount or not. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent verified the genuineness of the petitioner's ticket with regard to the serial number with that of the alpha number, which tallied and the series are also visible and it tallied with the departmental counterfoil and also there is no doubt or dispute with regard to the genuineness of the petitioner's prize winning ticket No. C 589201. As per Rule 36(h) of the T.N. Raffle Rules, the decision of the Director of Tamilnadu Raffle shall be final and binding, if the genuineness of the ticket is questioned. The second respondent has found that the petitioner's ticket is genuine and tallied with the departmental counterfoil. However, the second respondent, without sanctioning the amount had chosen to address a letter to the Government on 16.4.2001, which reads as follows:
"DEPARTMENT OF TAMIL NADU RAFFLE
From Thiru K. Skandan, IAS, Government, Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Raffle, 621, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. To The Secretary to Finance (Raffle) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
Rc. No. 1156/2001/B1 dated 16.4.2001.
Sir,
Sub: Tamil Nadu Raffle Scheme - 1st Tamil Nadu Vallal held on 4.2.2001 Raffle Ticket No. C 589201 I Prize of Rs. 1 lakh Claim received on torn ticket reg.
Ref: G.O. Ms No. 209, Finance (Raffle) Department dt, 20.5.1999.
2. Claim received from Thiru K. Krishna Kumar, Chennai 600 028.
In the 1st Tamil Nadu Vallal draw held on 4.2.2001, raffle ticket. C 589201 secured I prize of Rs. 1 lakh. A claim for the ticket was received from Thiru S. Krsihna Kumar, No. 2, Madha Church Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028, on 23.3.2001, on a torn ticket.
According to Rule 37 of Tamil nadu Raffle Rules, read with G.O. Ms. No. 209, Finance (Raffle) Department dated 20.5.1999, payment on torn and mutilated and tampered tickets shall not be made.
However, I am to state that the Raffle tickets are purchased by lower-middle income and low-income group people at large, an appreciable portion of which are illiterate. They do not know much of the preservation of the prize winning ticket and its presentation to the Department intact. Further, Tamil Nadu Raffle tickets are being purchased by more and more people leading to increased turnover and profit to the Government, during the last two years. With transparency and genuineness our tickets are penetrating deeper into the market amidst competitive conditions. It is therefore fair and just that the prize winners are not deprived of their prizes just because the tickets are torn, particularly when our tickets are picking up sales.
I therefore feel that as a special case, the present prize claim may be considered for payment, subject to being found genuine.
In the present claim, the prize winning ticket is torn into two pieces. However, the three sets of serial numbers (with alpha numeral number names) and two sets of series alongside the numbers are intact. The departmental counterfoil is also found to tally with the ticket presented for claim. The last date for receipt of claim is 4.4.2001. No other claim has been received in this office on the prize winning number as on date.
I therefore request that the Government may be pleased to permit me to make payment on the prize winning ticket, subject to being found genuine.
I request early orders.
For Commissioner."
9. In the light of the statutory rule, which empowers the second respondent to decide the issue and to verify the genuineness of the prize winning ticket and the second respondent having found that the petitioner's prize winning ticket is genuine and tallied with the departmental counter foil, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, particularly when the ticket was surrendered within 60 days as required under Rule 37.
10. In the light of the above finding, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to sanction and par a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) with interest at 9% interest from 23.4.2001. The petitioner is' directed to hand over the ticket along with the copy of this order before the first respondent and get proper acknowledgement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed with above directions. No costs.
Comments