https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467719 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable to challenge a State-administered raffle authority's refusal to release prize money, because arbitrary or unlawful public action is not excluded merely by the claim's contractual source. The clause requiring automatic forfeiture of unclaimed prize money after three months was held invalid: it was treated as penal, unconscionable, and contrary to public policy, since the State held the prize amount in a fiduciary capacity and showed no corresponding legal injury. Relief was granted by enforcing the prize claim and issuing mandamus against reliance on the forfeiture term. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:06:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467719 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable to challenge a State-administered raffle authority's refusal to release prize money, because arbitrary or unlawful public action is not excluded merely by the claim's contractual source. The clause requiring automatic forfeiture of unclaimed prize money after three months was held invalid: it was treated as penal, unconscionable, and contrary to public policy, since the State held the prize amount in a fiduciary capacity and showed no corresponding legal injury. Relief was granted by enforcing the prize claim and issuing mandamus against reliance on the forfeiture term. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467719