Locus standi in lottery regulation: statutory agents may challenge a ban when their independent business rights are directly affected.

Statutory agents and distributors of a State lottery had locus to challenge a notification banning online and internet lottery sales because their own business interests and statutory rights were directly affected. An agent coupled with interest may enforce an independent personal right under agency principles, including the protections reflected in Sections 202 and 230 of the Contract Act. Article 131 did not bar the writ petitions, as it applies to disputes strictly between the constitutional units named in that provision and does not exclude private parties or statutory agents asserting independent rights. The High Court's view on maintainability was therefore erroneous and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions filed by the statutory agents of the States were maintainable, and whether the bar of Article 131 of the Constitution of India applied when the agents had an independent legal right to challenge the notification prohibiting online lottery sales.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a State notification issued under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 prohibiting the sale of online and internet lottery tickets in Karnataka. The petitioners were not mere strangers: they were appointed agents and distributors, had invested substantial sums in the lottery business, and faced penal consequences under Section 7(3) if they continued operations contrary to the notification. The statutory scheme recognized agents and selling distributors under Section 4(c), and the Contract Act principles governing agency showed that an agent coupled with interest has an enforceable personal stake protected by Sections 202 and 230. A person whose statutory or contractual right to carry on business is directly affected may challenge the offending action in his own right. Article 131 was held to govern disputes strictly between the constitutional units specified therein and not to exclude a writ petition by private parties or statutory agents asserting independent rights. The petitioners therefore had locus standi and the High Court erred in holding the writ petitions not maintainable.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable, the Article 131 objection failed, and the impugned judgment was set aside in favour of the appellants.

---