H. ANRAJ AND OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 23-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B· 
c 
I 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
; . 
• 
• 
440 
H. ANRAJ AND OTHERS ETC. 
V.· 
• 
STATE OF .. MAHAR'-sHTRA 
•• 
January 23, 1984 
[Q. CmN~A~PA REDDY •. E. S. VENKATAAA~IAH AND R. B. M1sRA, JJ] 
l 
Constitution ?f India 1950 
Articles. 73 alld 298-GOvern'!lent of State-Whether could organise. lotteries-. 
Whether competent to. ban sale of ti'ck"ets of lotteries conducted by other Sta'te Govern· 
ments. 
· · 
Entry 40 List I VIII Sc/1edule, Emry 34 List II VIII Schedule & Articles 246(1) . • 't' 
and (3). 
· 
State LegiSlatµre-whether co1npeten.t 10· enact a law touching lotteries organised 
by the Govenunent of India or a State'Government. 
.•. 
Lotteries Sale of_tickets of lotteries c_onducte;J _by oiler State Governments-State 
Go1
1~rn1nent---· Whether competent to iJaJt .wiJhin in _own State. 
· 
By a press release, the Government of Maharashtra declared that the sale of 
lottery tickets of Stales other than the State of Maharashtra was .unlawful ·an(l 
w"arped the public .that no lottery ticket o~ other States should be sold within the 
State. 
· 
•The petitioner.s who were agents for the Sale of tickets for lotteries coll ducted 
.by various:State Governments other.thait the State'of Maharashtra contended in 
their writ-petitions, that the aforesaid ban that was soµght to be irriposed had no 
lega:l authority. 
·Under the Constitlltion lotteries organiSed by the GoVernment 
of India or. the Government of a State was a subject which was within the exclusive 
legisiative· comPeience of Pa~lia~ent and that it was not open ·.to· the Governnient 
of any State pu_rporting to A.Ct in exercise of its executive power to in1pose such a· 
. ban .. On behalf of the Sti.te ·aovernment-respondent· it was•Contended . .that the_ 
Union Government's execut_ive power wa's co-extensive with the power to make 
laws, that the President in exercise Or his" power Under Article 258(1) ha_d ehtr-Usted 
to the State Government the executive power of the UniOn through a Presidential. 
Order dated April 2, 1969 in respect of lotteries run by the State, and therefore it 
was competent for the St;i.te · Gc;:>vernment to imp.ose. the ban. 
Allowi;1g th~ writ Petitions. 
.. 
HELD : 1. The Government of M.aharashtra cannot purport to ban the 
• 
-
.. 
-· 
). 
H. ANRAJ ·v. MAHARASHTRA 
.. 
.. 441 
t# 
sale of lottC:ry tickets of other State by ,;irtue oJ the entrustment of power under 
Article 258(1) of the Constitution. [447 DJ 
i. Entry 40 of Lfst I of the VIIIth SChcdule to the Constitution is. "Lotteries 
organised by the Governn1ent of India or the Government of a State". Entry 34 
of List II of VIiS Schedule is, "Betting and ga:inbling". 
Sinc.e the subject 'Lotteries 
organised by the Governni.ent of India or the Govcrnnient 'of a State' }J.as been 
taken out from-the legislatiV_e field comprised by the exprcssi&n "Betting and gamb· 
1illg" and .reserved t6 be dealt with by Parliament, wifhin its exclusive legislative 
competence it must follow, in vie\\' of Articld'-246(1) and (3) that no legislature of 
a State, can n1ake a law touching i9ttcries organisid by the· Government of Tndia 
.Or the Government of a State. [444 P-El 
-....... 
3. Articl,e 73 extends the executi"ve power of the UniOn to the matters with 
( 
respect to which Parliament has po:wer to make. Ja:ws. 
Bu~he executiv~ p~\\'er 
' 
.of the UQidn, I;>y the very opening words of Art. 73 is "subject to the proV:isions 
· of .the Constitution". It thefefore follows that the .executive power of the Unjon 
with rCspect to 'lotteries organised by the· GOvernment of a .State has necessarily to 
be exercised subject .to -the provisions of the Constitution, .including Art. 298, which 
expressly extends the execi.itive power of the State to the.carrying on of any trade 
-If 
or business subject Only to legislation Qy Parliament if the trade or "business is not 
one with respect to which the state Legislatur"e·n1ay make laws. [4470-H; 440A-B 
·~ 
4. 
Reading and c;on'sidering Articles 73 and 298 together, it is clear that the 
executive power of a· State iii the n1atter of carr)ring on any trade on business. with 
respect tb_ which i.he State legislature may noi make la~NS ·is subject to lcgislatiop by· 
Parlian1ef!.t but is not subject tb the executive power of the Union. The Goyern-
m~nt of a State is qot required to obtain the Permission of the Union Government 
in order· to organise its lotteries; in the absen~.of Parliaffientary legislatjon. Even 
assuming that such pe,nnission 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.