Dismissed

R K Recreation and Sports Association v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2021WP/104265/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking exemption from obtaining a police licence for recreational activities. The court referred to a prior order, directing the petitioner to install CCTV cameras, issue ID cards, prohibit gambling, and allow police surveillance while restricting state interference with lawful activities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to install CCTV cameras, issue ID cards, prohibit gambling, and ensure lawful activities while restricting respondent interference.

R K Recreation and Sports Association Vs the State… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104265/2021 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. R.K.RECREATION AND SPORTS ASSOCATION, UNKAL, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580028.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LINGAPPA HOSAMANI, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. TEACHER’S COLONY, SAI NAGAR HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580031.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580028.

¶15

D.C.P. (LAW) NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580028

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COURT CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580028.

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

C.P.I, VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580004.

¶19

P.S.I., VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580004.

¶20

..RESPONDENTS

¶21

(SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 DIRECTING NOT TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO OBTAIN A LICENCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT OR PREVENT THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO CONDUCT ITS LEGAL ACTIVITITES.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other orders/direction to the respondents 5 to 6 directing not to insist upon the petitioner Association to obtain a licence under the provisions of Karnataka Police Act, or prevent the petitioner Association to conduct its legal activities.

¶28

(ii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

the case, including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

Both the counsels submit that, the above matter is covered by the order dated 22.02.2016 passed in W.P.No.101799/2016 (GM-Police) in Srimanth

¶32

Ramchandrarao Appasaheb Club, Jamakhandi Vs. State of Karnataka.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the light of the decision in WP.No.101799/2016 (GM-Police) and with a view to maintain parity, writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall install CCTV cameras at the places of access to its members and also at all the places, wherein game(s) is/are played by the members within a period of six weeks. The CCTV footages of at least prior 15 days’ period shall be made available by the petitioner to the jurisdictional police, as and when called upon to do so.

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall issue identity card(s) to all its member(s), which shall be produced by the member(s), when called upon by the concerned police, during the raid(s), surveillance, etc.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall not allow any nonmember(s) or the guest(s) of the member(s), to make use of its premises for the purpose of playing any kind of game(s) or recreational activities.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall not permit any activity by any of its member(s), by indulging in acts of amusement, falling within the definition of Sections 2(14) & 2(15) of the Act and shall not permit any game(s) of chance as per Explanation (II) of Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The member(s) shall not be allowed to play any kind of game(s) with stakes or make any profit or gain out of the game(s) played.

¶39

: 5 :

¶40

(v) The petitioner shall put proper mechanism in place and shall ensure that no game(s) is played in any unlawful manner by the member(s). If the jurisdictional police find the game(s) played is/are contrary to any law and in violation of the settled practice, it is open to them to taken action against the petitioner and the offenders, in accordance with law.

¶41

(vi) The jurisdictional police shall have liberty to visit premises periodically and/or on receipt of any information about any unlawful activity being carried on in the petitioner’s premises.

¶42

(vii) The respondents are directed not to interfere with the lawful recreational activities carried on by the members of the petitioner’sClub/Association.

¶43

(viii) It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the jurisdictional police

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

invoking the provisions of the Act and taking action in accordance with law, if the member(s) of the petitioner is/are found to have indulged in any unlawful or immoral activities.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

*Svh/-

R K Recreation and Sports Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R K Recreation and Sports Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kaushik Vs Pushpa Pankaj Kaushik

G Bheemanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Raghavendra S/O. Sudhindra Hirenarti Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Vithal S/O Late Eshwarappa Arer Vs the State of Karnataka

Basamma W/O Late Basappa M.D Vs Talakal Mallappa S/O Siddappa

Shahzad Begum Urf Rahamankhatib W/O. Mustaqkhan Biradar Vs Dilerkhan S/O. Abdulkarimkhan Biradar