ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1. Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the relief to direct the respondents to make the payment of the amount of the prize of the Lottery Ticket of M.P. Daily Lottery. Petitioner won the first prize of Rs. 1 lac of the M.P. Daily Lottery in the draw held on 24-10-1992 bearing ticket No. OH 143819.
2. Petitioner purchased the lottery and won the first prize over the ticket bearing No. OH 143819 in the draw of M.P. Daily Lottery run by Govt. of M.P. of which draw was held every day. Ticket was required to be presented within 30 days from the date of the draw. Petitioner was busy in agricultural operations and could not be able to go to Bhopal to receive the prize and hence sent a letter of intimation on 5-11-92. Petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 2 on 10-11-92 within 30 days from the date of the draw. He was asked by the officials of respondent No. 2 to bring Domicile Certificate, therefore, he returned back to his village and thereafter again appeared in the office of respondent No. 2 along with the Domicile Certificate and original ticket, copies of which are P-2 and P-3. He was asked to come after some days along with these documents. The petitioner submitted a representation (P-4) on 10-11-92. Petitioner again approached the respondent No. 2 but the officials of respondent No. 2 refused to accept the ticket. Petitioner was further asked to file an affidavit. Petitioner again went back to his village to swear an affidavit. Affidavit (P-5) was sworn before the Notary on 20-11-92 and he returned back to Bhopal along with affidavit and other documents. Again respondent No. 2 refused to accept the documents. They were not ready to hear anything as according to them since State Govt. has promulgated an Ordinance and banned all the activities of lottery, they were unable to do anything in respect of the prize of the lottery ticket. Petitioner was made to go back without receiving the prize of ticket and without the documents brought by him were not accepted by respondents. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed on 23-11 -92. As the last date for payment of the prize of the ticket was 24-11 -92, writ petition was presented before this Court on 23-11-92 within the period of 30 days from the date of draw on which petitioner won the first prize.
3. A return has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended in the return that the matter is governed by M.P. State Lottery Rules, 1991. Rule 12 deals with the payment of prizes. Rule 12 of the M.P. State Lottery Rules, 1991 is quoted below:--
'12. Payment of prizes.-- (1) Payment of all prizes in respect of which Income Tax is to be deducted at source shall be made by the Director. For prizes of lesser amounts, the Director shall be free to decide the upper limit of the prizes which may be distributed by the Main Stockist.
(2) A prize winner claiming his prize from the Director shall send the prize winning ticket by registered post or through a bank or may present it in person along with a stamped receipt for the amount of prize to the Director. Such claims shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the draw. Any claim which is not preferred within this period, shall lapse and shall stand forfeited:
Provided that the Director may on an application made in this behalf by a prize winner within 45 days from the date of draw, authorise payment of the prize if he is satisfied that the prize winner was for sufficient reasons prevented from claiming the money within 30 days from the date of the draw. The decision of the Director in respect of condonation of delay shall be final and binding on the prize winner.
(3) No claim on the basis of tickets which are mutilated, defaced or in any manner tampered with, shall be accepted. Prize money shall be paid by means of a Bank Draft after 45 days of the date of the draw.'
4. Petitioner surrendered the photo-copy of prize winning ticket along with affidavit dated 19-11-92 before respondent No. 2. As he did not produce the Original ticket, the prize money was not paid as per Rule 12 of the M.P. State Lottery Rules, 1991. Petitioner did not follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 12 which says to present original prize winning ticket along with ,the stamp receipt for amount of prize to the Director, hence, the prize money could not be paid on the photo-copy of the ticket. Petitioner never produced the claim with the original ticket his claim was not considered as per Rule 12. There is stockist appointed by Govt. who shall be main stockist in respect of lottery scheme. Respondent No. 3 main stockist has executed an agreement with Director. Clause 22 deals with unclaimed prizes within the stipulated period, the main stockist, respondent No. 3, will keep the unclaimed prizes. If the prize is not properly claimed then it will vest with respondent No. 3. Rule 13 has also been relied upon which deals with Arbitration. Rule 13 is quoted below:--
'13. Arbitration.-- Every dispute, difference or question which may at any time arise between the State Government or any authority acting on its behalf on the One hand and any other party to an agreement entered into by the State Government for conducting a State Lottery and all other activities ancillary thereto on the other hand shall be referred to the arbitration of the Finance Secretary. In the event of the Arbitrator being transferred or vacating his office, his successor in office shall proceed with the reference from the State at which it was left by his predecessor.
The Provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to the arbitration proceedings.'
5. Rule 14 has also been relied upon which deals with the jurisdiction of Courts at Bhopal only. As petitioner is having remedy of arbitration or civil suit, no interference is called for in this writ petition.
6. Shri Salim Rehman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that petitioner has contacted within 30 days period thrice and has also produced original lottery ticket before respondent No. 2. The same was not paid in an illegal manner. Admittedly, petitioner being winner of first prize, ought to have been paid the amount. He has submitted that arbitration clause is not attracted in the instant case. He has submitted that it is clearly an after thought to contend that original lottery ticket was not produced. This writ petition was filed within the period of 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the daily lottery which was declared on 24-10-92. Thus, it is clear that respondents have acted illegally and want to illegally usurp the money in most arbitrary manner. Thus, writ petition deserves to be allowed and direction be made to the respondents to make the payment of the amount along with the interest as the amount has been illegally withheld.
7. Ms. Jai Laxmi Aiyer, learned GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has urged that arbitration clause is attracted in the instant case and petitioner did not present the original ticket within the period of 30 days. As such the amount of prize could not be disbursed; as there was no valid claim made within the period of 30 days, the amount has not been paid, thus, no interference is called for in the writ petition.
8. First question for consideration is whether arbitration clause is attracted in the instant case. Reading of the arbitration clause contained in Rule 13 makes it clear that same is not attracted to the case, it is attracted in case of dispute of the State Government with an agreement holder which makes it clear that if an agreement is entered into by the State Govt., for conducting the State Lottery with any other party, such a dispute has to be referred to the arbitration of the finance Secretary. Admittedly, there is no agreement with the petitioner entered into by any of the respondents, thus, arbitration clause contained in Rule 13 is not attracted to the case.
9. In the instant case petitioner has filed this writ petition within 30 days. The draw was held on 24-10-92. This writ petition was filed on 23-11-92. It is not in dispute that petitioner had won the first prize in the draw. Petitioner attended the office of respondent No. 2 thrice which fact has not been denied in the return filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He was asked to give the Domicile Certificate. It is also not 'denied that petitioner visited, the office on 10-11-92. Petitioner submitted the representation (P-4) and also submitted an affidavit (P-5) along with Domicile Certificate, thus, the stand taken by the respondents in the return that petitioner did not produce the original ticket is not at all acceptable. Petitioner has made in the instant case every effort to obtain the prize of the prize winning ticket. It is admitted in Para 2 of the return that petitioner surrendered the photo-copy of prize winning ticket along with an affidavit dated 19-11-92 within the period which is prescribed. The stand taken that original ticket was not carried or produced by the petitioner is untenable and unbelievable. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on 23-11-92. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the prize of the ticket in question.
10. The ground taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that amount is to be vested in respondent No. 3, the Agent, after 30 days; as the amount was not properly claimed is equally futile as petitioner has been wrongfully deprived of money of prize winning ticket, it is for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to claim the amount from respondent No. 3. Plea cannot come in the way of not making the payment of the prize winning ticket to the petitioner. The petitioner produced the original ticket and was not given the prize on the ground that State has banned the lottery activities. In any case it is clear that petitioner made every effort to obtain the prize of winning ticket, even in case of delay, there is provision in the rule to condone the delay but in the instant case within 30 days, the all steps were taken by the petitioner including production of original ticket which was not accepted and the prize was not paid for the reasons best known to the respondents.
11. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed and in the circumstances, it is directed that on petitioner's producing the original ticket within one month from today, the prize shall be paid to the petitioner along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The costs of petition of Rs. 5,000/- are also imposed over the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
C.C. as per rules.