https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295315 Rules framed under delegated power to implement the Lotteries (Regulation) Act may validly require pre-marketing verification and compliance checks for lotteries sold within Kerala. Rule 24(3) was treated as a regulatory safeguard to prevent contravention of Sections 3 and 4, not as an impermissible prohibition under Section 5, and was upheld as valid. Rule 3(3) was also upheld because it authorised monitoring of lottery sales in line with the Act and Rules. Rule 24(10) was sustained as an interim suspension measure pending the Central Government's decision under Section 6. The public notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries was held lawful as a competent cautionary notice issued in public interest. en-us Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 May 2021 13:49:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295315 Rules framed under delegated power to implement the Lotteries (Regulation) Act may validly require pre-marketing verification and compliance checks for lotteries sold within Kerala. Rule 24(3) was treated as a regulatory safeguard to prevent contravention of Sections 3 and 4, not as an impermissible prohibition under Section 5, and was upheld as valid. Rule 3(3) was also upheld because it authorised monitoring of lottery sales in line with the Act and Rules. Rule 24(10) was sustained as an interim suspension measure pending the Central Government's decision under Section 6. The public notice issued by the Director of State Lotteries was held lawful as a competent cautionary notice issued in public interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295315