![]() Tuesday, Apr 06, 2004 |
| Kerala | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Kerala
By P. Venugopal
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, APRIL 5. In the online lottery case, now before the High Court, the stand the State Government has taken is that "more than 15 lakh Malayalis are being cheated/defrauded on a day-to-day basis by the operators of the illegal lotteries". This implies that the State is interested in an expeditious disposal of the case by the High Court so that the `cheating/defrauding' exercise could be ended at the earliest in the interest of the 15 lakh victims mentioned. However, the progress of the case since January 20, does not give signs of any urgency on the part of the Advocate General (AG) in bringing the case to a conclusion as early as possible. The case have been postponed 16 times since then, due to reasons including the inconvenience of either the Government advocates or the advocates representing the online lottery companies. On January 20, the case was postponed to January 28 at the request of the AG. On January 28, it was posted to February 5 at the request of the counsel for Meghalaya lotteries, because of the inconvenience of a senior advocate representing the appellant. On February 5, the argument by the AG was `inconclusive' and he himself requested that the case be posted to February 24 because of his personal inconvenience. (The AG, Ratna Singh, was busy then in connection with a function being organised in Kozhikode in connection with the 50th anniversary of his enrolment as an advocate.) On February 24, there was no sitting of the court due to the death of the Governor, Sikander Bakht. The counsel for the appellant requested the court to postpone the case till March 6, but the request was not conceded. The court expressed the view that, after the completion of the argument by the AG, the matter could be heard on March 6, if found necessary. On February 25, 26 and 27, the case was listed in the business of the court, but it did not come up for hearing. The Government advocates did not press the court for a `pre-audience' by highlighting the urgency of the matter relating to `15 lakh people being cheated/defrauded on a day-to-day basis'. The case was then posted for March 4. On that day also, it was not taken up for hearing. No mention was made in the court by the Government advocates on this date also about the professed urgency of disposing of the case. On March 8, Ajith Prakash, who has since been terminated from service as a Government advocate due to differences with the AG, submitted before the court that the case be taken up on March 10. On that day and the next, the counsels for the appellants presented their arguments before the court and then the case was adjourned to March 22. This adjournment was to allow the Union Government to file an affidavit "reporting action taken by the Central Government on the petition filed by the State of Kerala and also disclosing the views of the Central Government" on the subject. On March 22, the Union Government filed its affidavit, but the case was adjourned to March 29 for getting the Union Government's `views'. On March 29, the counsel for the Union Government filed a copy of the draft Lotteries (Prohibition) Bill, proposed to be introduced in the Parliament banning all lotteries. The AG did not appear in the case on March 29 and it was adjourned yet again till April 6.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|