Dismissed

Tilt Room Recreation Society v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2022CCC/894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under the Contempt of Courts Act was filed alleging willful disobedience by police officers for visiting premises and halting activities. The court found the visit lawful under its own earlier order directing police to check for unlawful activities upon receipt of information. The contempt petition was dropped without finding disobedience.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dropped.

Tilt Room Recreation Society Vs the State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶7

CCC NO.894 OF 2021(CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

TILT ROOM RECREATION SOCIETY A SOCIETY REGD. UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICES AT: NO.243, 3RD FLOOR, AISHWARYA GROUP 80TH MAIN ROAD, DEFENCE COLONY, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 038 REP.BY ITS PRESIDENTMR. SRIHARSHA V.R.

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI. A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRATHEEK H.C. ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

¶15

2. KAMAL PANT

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

¶17

BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE 560 001.

¶18

3. B.C. HARISH

¶19

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶20

INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION

¶21

INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 038.

¶22

… ACCUSED

¶23

(BY SRI. V. SREENIDHI AGA FOR R1 AND 3 R2 SERVED)

¶24

¶25

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 13-12-2017 IN W.P.NO.55798/2017 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶26

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J. , MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The complainant filed the present contempt petition

¶29

to take action against respondents/accused- Police officers

¶30

under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

¶31

for their willful disobedience of the order of the learned

¶32

¶33

Single Judge dated 13-12-2017, wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition No.55798/2017 disposed of the same with the following directions:

¶34

"(i) The petitioner shall install within a period of six weeks, CC TV cameras, at all the places of access to its members and also at all the places, wherein games(s) is/are played by the members. The CC TV footage of atleast prior 15 days' period shall be made available by the petitioner, to the police, as and when called upon to do so;

¶35

(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 police, during the raid(s) and survelliance etc.;

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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 Ss. 2(14) & 2(15) of the Act and shall not permit

¶38

¶39

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;

¶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 police find that game(s) played is contrary to any law and in violation of the settled practice, it is open to them to take action against 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 - Club/Association;

¶43

(viii) It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the jurisdictional police invoking the provisions of the Act and taking action in accordance with law, if the member(s) of the

¶44

¶45

petitioner are found to have indulged in any unlawful or immoral activities.

¶46

The respondents have filed reply/objections on 12-1-2022. In paragraphs 4 and 5 it is specifically stated

¶47

as under:

¶48

"4. I most respectfully state that it is the allegation of the Complainant that on 25-10-2021, the Police Personnel of Respondent No.3 have entered the premises of the Complainant without their permission and we have forced the complainant to halt the activities which were being conducted inside the Complainant's Club. The said allegation is prima facie false. In fact, the Hoysala Team had visited the Club on 25-10-2021 only to ensure that no unlawful activities are being conducted within the premises of the Complainant's Club. The Complainant, taking serious exception for the presence of the Police Personnel inside their Club, have issued a legal notice, making baseless allegations against the jurisdictional police.

¶49

I respectfully state that the action done by the Respondent-Police is strictly in accordance with law and is strictly in compliance with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The respondentPolice at no point of time, have violated any law or any of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶50

¶51

The action of the Respondent-Police is in the usual course of the Police conducting their official business to ensure that no unlawful activities are being done within the premises of the Complainant's Club."

¶52

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel for

¶54

complainant pointed out that this Court while disposing of the writ petition specifically instructed the police not to interfere with the lawful recreational activities carried on by the members of the petitioner-Club/Association. Thereby, the Police in the name of periodical visitation have interfered with the lawful activities of the Association. Therefore, it is a fit case to initiate contempt proceedings and sought to allow the petition.

¶55

Per contra, Sri. V.Sreenidhi, learned AGA

¶56

reiterating the objections filed pointed out that direction Nos. 6 and 8 reads as under:

¶57

"(vi) The jurisdictional police shall have liberty to visit premises periodically and/or on receipt of any information about any unlawful

¶58

¶59

activity being carried on in the petitioner's premises;

¶60

(vii) xxx xxx xxx

¶61

(viii) It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the jurisdictional police invoking the provisions of the Act and taking action in accordance with law, if the member(s) of the petitioner are found to have indulged in any unlawful or immoral activities."

¶62

and submits that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, jurisdictional police have liberty to visit the premises periodically and/or on receipt of any information about any unlawful activity being carried on in the petitioner's premises and has specifically invited our attention to para 5 of the objections that," respondentPolice at no point of time, have violated any law or any of

¶63

the orders passed by this court. The action of the Respondent-Police is in the usual course of the Police conducting their official business to ensure that no unlawful activities are being done within the premises of the Complainant's Club." Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the contempt petition.

¶64

¶65

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶66

it is an un-disputed fact that, this Court while disposing of the writ petition No.55798/2017 on 13-12-2017 issued 08 directions as stated supra. Direction Nos. 6,7 and 8 should read conjointly and harmoniously. After reading the said directions, it clearly depict that the police officers/ respondents should not interfere with the lawful recreational activities carried on by the members of the petitioner's Club. At the same time, police shall have a liberty to visit the premises periodically and or on receipt of any information about unlawful activity being carried on in the petitioners' premises. This Court also made clear that the observations made or directions issued at 1 to 7 would not come in the way of the jurisdictional police invoking the provisions of the Act and taking action in accordance with law, if the members of petitioner's association found to have indulged in any unlawful or immoral activities. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior counsel that this Court granted injunction restraining the accused not to interfere with the lawful

¶67

¶68

recreational activities cannot be accepted. The fact remains that, if the unlawful activities carried on by the members of petitioner's association, a check is necessary, thereby, direction Nos. 7 and 8 were incorporated reserving liberty to the police.

¶69

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Indiranagar, has filed an affidavit on oath before this Court against oath filed by the complainant and specifically stated that allegations made in the contempt are false and Hoysala team visited the club on 25-10-2021 only to ensure that no unlawful activities are being conducted within the premises of complainant's-Club and police have not violated any conditions of the Court. The police in usual course visited the premises. In fact, in para-3, police reiterated the action is in accordance with law to ensure that no unlawful activities are being carried out within the premises of the complainant's recreation club and thereby there is no violation made by the accused as alleged by the complainant.

¶70

¶71

It is made clear that the police can visit premises of the complainant's club periodically to check any unlawful activity being carried on in the premises. Merely because the present petition is filed, the police cannot take vengeance and initiate proceedings as stated in para 6 of the objections.

¶72

The Police are the protectors of law to ensure that there should not be any unlawful activities not only among the members of the Club or general public they should act like members of civilized society and they should not take vengeance.

¶73

With these observations, the contempt petition is hereby dropped.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

tsn*

Tilt Room Recreation Society v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilt Room Recreation Society 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abid Ali Mirza Vs Bapuji Educational Association(R)

Sri C Nagaraju Vs Sri Selvakumar

Sri. P Sreeramulu Reddy Vs Sri. M Krishna

Sri Vasudeva Reddy Vs Sri Tushar Giri Nath

Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Eshwarappa Vs State of Karnataka