TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (1) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prize of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner chose the agency of the 3rd respondent, the Union Bank of India, Guntur for presentation of the ticket to the appropriate authority and for claiming the prize. On 27th November, 1969, the petitioner so handed over the ticket to the 3rd respondent for collection. 2. The bankers informed the petitioner that they originally presented the ticket for encashment in the Taluk Treasury on 20th February, 1970, but as certain forms had to be filled up as prescribed, they could not obtain payment and that after obtaining the forms they approached the Director of State Raffle and presented the necessary applications in due form for obtaining the prize amount. From the record it is seen that the said application to the Director of State Raffle in due form was received in the office of the Director on 18th March, 1970. The Director rejected the claim on the ground that as the request was made beyond three months from the date of draw the prize amount lapsed to the Government. The petitioner found fault with his bankers for their laches in not having dealt with the concerned subject, but ultimately approached the Director of State Raffle for payment of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matically forfeited to the Government. This rule consists of four parts. Firstly, the prize amount shall normally be claimed within four weeks. The word 'normally' is significant. It does not prescribe a period of limitation, but a rule of guidance. It is therefore capable of elasticity and ought not to be understood as a rigid prescription as to time. Secondly, if the prize amount is not claimed within the four weeks, then a special application for payment has to be made to the Director of State Raffle. Thirdly, if the prize amount is not claimed within three months from the date of draw, it shall lapse to the Government. Fourthly, such lapsed amount shall be automatically forfeited to the Government. The third aspect of this rule projects a negative situation whereunder if no claim is made within three months from the date of draw the prize amount shall lapse to the Government. This is an ordinary feature which appears in very many transactions, particularly in relation to affairs of Court and State. For example, if the dividend issued by the Official Assignee is not encashed within a particular time, or if the interest payable by the Administrator General or the Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rejecting the argument that as the origin of the dispute was a contract, the remedy of the aggrieved person was only to institute an action in the civil Court, the Supreme Court said that as the order was passed by a public authority and as by that order the citizen was deprived of a valuable right, it was not possible to hold that merely because the source of the right which the citizen claimed was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary or unlawful action on the part of the public authority he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. The Supreme Court, in such circumstances, held that the petition was maintainable, but added that where the action challenged was that of a public authority invested with statutory power a fortiori rules under Article 226 can issue even if the right to relief arose out of an alleged breach of contract. The learned Government Pleader distinguishes this case and says that what weighed with the Supreme Court in accepting a writ petition under Article 226 in that case was that the action challenged was that of a public authority invested with statutory power. As the Madras State Raffle Rules are not frame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for relief without exhausting the long drawn civil process for enforcement of his rights. The sine qua non however, in such cases is that the term in the bargain should be unreasonable and against public policy. No doubt, the term "public policy" is always an unsafe and treacherous ground for legal decision. But that would not affect the application of the doctrine of public policy to cases within its recognised bounds - see Pollock and Mulla's Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Eighth Edition, page 179. In such cases it for the Court, to find out whether the terms of the bargain which spring from a contract are fair and reasonable and the invariable test is "whether its implementation would be prejudicial or not to the public interest, for it is on grounds of public policy alone that such contracts are either supported or avoided. 9. In the instant case the petitioner can have no quarrel with the first three limbs of Rule 37 of the Madras State Raffle Rules. As I have already indicated, the Government ensures quicker, speedier and effective administration and to achieve that object and to close certain affairs as expeditiously as possible, unclaimed prize amounts whi....