Allowed

The Horticulture Officials Recreation Association v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2013WP/16281/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed police not to interfere with lawful recreational activities of an association playing skill games like Chess and Carrom, while reserving right to take action if unlawful activities ensue, relying on Shiva Association precedent.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with lawful recreational activities; liberty reserved to take action if unlawful activities ensue.

The Horticulture Officials Recreation Association Vs the… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF APRIL, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.16281 OF 2013 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE HORTICULTURE OFFICIALS RECREATION ASSOCIATION (RGD) OMKARAPPA COMPLEX, 2ND CROSS, PARK EXTENSION, SHIMOGA – 577 201, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI D.M.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MUREGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(By SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001

¶13

2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA 577 201

¶14

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA 577 201

¶15

4 POLICE SUB INSPECTOR JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION SHIMOGA 577 201 ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(By SRI R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS FROM INSISTING ON THE PETITIONER CLUB TO OBTAIN LICENSE TO RUN THE RECREATION CLUB.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondents.

¶22

In this case, the petitioner has sought for an order directing the respondents not to insist upon it to obtain license to carry on lawful activities in its premises either under the Police Act, or under the Provisions of Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement Order and not to interfere in the play of skill oriented games like Rummy, Poker, Chess and Carrom, Coin Games, Wall Ball skill and other skill games and etc.

¶23

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no activity necessitating obtaining of license under the Licensing Order is carried on in the

¶24

¶25

premises of the petitioner; that the activity of playing the games of Dart, Chess, Rummy, Snooker/Billiards and Carrom etc., are not in the nature of gambling activity or game of chance; that such games are not prohibited or regulated. Moreover, the place of the petitioner is not a public place and the entry is restricted only to the members of the petitioner-association and not to outsiders and accordingly there is no requirement on the part of the petitioner to obtain a license as contemplated under Clause-3 of the Licensing Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an earlier decision of this Court rendered in WP No.11843 of 2006, decided on 9.11.2006 (between M/s.Shiva Association vs. State of Karnataka & others) and submits that on similar terms this petition may also be disposed of.

¶26

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that the Police have not interfered and will not interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner and they would take action only if the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activities. He further submits that the respondents will not insist the petitioner for license for such of the activities for which no license is required.

¶27

¶28

I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The only complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents are interfering with the lawful activities carried on by it. Learned HCGP has denied the allegations made in the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the respondents should not interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner. At the same time, respondents should be permitted to take action according to law in case the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activity. On identical facts, this Court in Shiva’s case (supra) has restrained the respondents from interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner.

¶29

In the light of the above discussion, I pass the following order:-

¶30

a) The respondents are directed not to interfere with the lawful recreational activities carried on by the members of the petitioner-Association.

¶31

¶32

b) It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to take any appropriate action according to law, if the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activity.

¶33

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KLY/

The Horticulture Officials Recreation Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Horticulture Officials Recreation Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K N Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudha M Vs the Station House Officer

Sri L. Kishore Kumar Vs Smt Sumana Kishore

Sri Vinayaka Education Society (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. Martha Irena Jakimowici Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

Maakalamma Recreation and Sports Club Vs Government of Karnataka