Allowed

M/S Qball Max Sports Center v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021WP/20524/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing, the Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging police authority to require licenses for various games. Relying on W.P. No. 25326/2017, the court granted the same relief as previously awarded, allowing indoor and outdoor activities subject to COVID restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted relief identical to that in W.P. No. 25326/2017; allowed to conduct indoor and outdoor games subject to COVID restrictions.

M/S Qball Max Sports Center Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.20524 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. QBALL MAX SPORTS CENTER NO.57, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MINI FOREST ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE ZONE-3, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. S. KUMAR S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH,

¶17

¶18

ROYAN CIRLCLE, N.T. PET, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶20

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT POLICE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO INSIST THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN PERMISSION OR LICENSE AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 AS SUCH AS AN INTERFERENCE IS TO BE DECLARED AS ILLEGAL AND INVALID AND BY DECLARING THAT THE PERMITTED INDOOR AND OUTDOOR GAMES ARE CONCERNED, TO CARRY ON RECREATIONAL AND OTHER LAWFUL ACTIVITIES LIKE RUGBY, KABBADI, FANTASTIC THREE VIDEO GAMES, CRICKET, HOCKEY VOLLEY-BALL, WALL GAME, WALL BALL, COMPUTERS GAME, POKER, TABLE TENNIS, DARTS GAME, PING PONG BALL GAME, RECREATION AND OTHER ALL SKILLED GAMES EXCEPT GAMBLING, SPOTS, ADVENTURE PROGRAMMERS, SOCIAL, EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND CONDUCT TALUK, DISTRICT AND STATE LEVEL MOTOR RACE CHESS, SNOOKER GAMES, BILLRDS GAMES, POOL GAMES, PLAY STATION, PS5 GAME, CARROM, FANTASTIC III, PLAYED WITH 3 DICE BALL, DART GAMES, ELECTRONIC COIN GAMES TABLE TENNIS, CARDS (RUMMY) SNOOKER, POOL GAME, BILLIARDS, JOKER BONUS GAMES, SIX COLOUR, SKILL GAME, AND OTHER INDOOR AND OUTDOOR GAMES IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PREMISES. AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in W.P.No.25326/2017

(GM-POLICE) between

SRI ANNAMMA SOCIAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF

¶30

KARNATAKA & ORS , disposed off on 14.06.2017, a copy of the judgment is at Annexure-G.

¶31

The Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER &

¶32

SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, it has been held that like cases should be treated alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigants, subject to all just exceptions.

¶33

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off granting the same relief as has been granted to the litigant in the aforesaid Writ Petition; this apart, petitioner shall follow COVID related restrictions too.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

DS/JY

M/S Qball Max Sports Center v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Qball Max Sports Center v. 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

Bheema Naika Vs the State of Karnataka

A v Anantharaman Vs the Principal Secretary to the

M/S Rajeshwari Engineering Works Vs the State of Karnataka

All India Union Bank Officer'S Federation Vs Union Bank of India

M.G. Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Radiant Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karnataka State Electronics