Allowed

Sarvodaya Social Club v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/106085/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a registered social club seeking a direction for police authorities not to insist on licenses for skill games and sports. The court issued guidelines restricting entry to members, mandating CCTV installation, and prohibiting games of chance while permitting lawful recreational activities.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to install CCTV, issue member ID cards, restrict non-member entry, and prohibit games of chance; police directed not to interfere with lawful activities.

Sarvodaya Social Club Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106085 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SARVODAYA SOCIAL CLUB, MAIN ROAD, GAJENDRAGADA, TA: GAJENDRAGADA, DISTRICT: GADAG, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, BASAVARAJ S/O. ADIVEPPA HUGAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE AND PRESIDENT OF SARVODAYA SOCIAL CLUB, R/O. GAJENDRAGADA, TQ: GAJENDRAGADA, DISTRICT: GADAG-582101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MANJANNA E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VISHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582101.

¶17

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582101.

¶18

THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, RON POLICE STATION, TQ: GAJENDRAGADA, DISTRICT: GADAG-582101.

¶19

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, GAJENDRAGADA POLICE STATION,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶22

TQ: GAJENDRAGADA, DISTRICT: GADAG-582101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP.)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDERS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES NOT TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN LICENSE FOR PLAYING SKILL GAMES LIKE CHESS, DART GAME, RUMMY AND CARROM, VIDEO GAMES, ELECTRONIC AMUSEMENT GAMES, DICE GAMES, EITHER UNDER KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1960 OR UNDER THE LICENSING AND CONTROLLING OF PLACE OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP representing the respondents.

¶31

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus by way of directions to the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain license for playing skill games indoor games like Chess, Carrom,

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶33

Rummy, Table Tennis, Lawn tennis, Billiards, Badminton and outdoor games such as Tennis, Tenniqutte, Athletics, Cricket etc., and further direction to respondents not to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner club.

¶34

Petitioner is a social club under the name of Sarvodaya Social Club, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 vide registration No.DR/GDG/SOR-158/2012-13 dated 14.08.2012. Petitioner is running several sports activities to adults, children and other members of the Club to train the members exclusively for sports. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.5 started interfering with the affairs of the petitioner and orally asking the petitioner to stop the activities. Whereas, respondents have given ultimatum and warning to close down the Club otherwise they would lock the premises for not obtaining license. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court due to the high handedness and arbitrary manner of respondent No.5 in

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶36

trying to coerce the petitioner not to run the sports activities in its Club.

¶37

5. Learned HCGP for respondents contends that no

¶38

such coercion or force has been made to the petitioner Club to obtain license and sign any documents nor interfere with the activities of the petitioner Club. He further contends that the respondents being the jurisdictional Police authorities are visiting to monitor whether any illegal or unlawful activities are being conducted in the petitioner Club. Apart from that there is no intention of the respondents either in coercing the petitioner from obtaining the license to those activities, which are not required to be obtained by law, or in any other manner whatsoever. Hence, he contends that this petition is premature as no such order has been issued or given to the petitioner to obtain license or to shut down the premises run by the petitioner.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the

¶40

judgment of this Court in the case of Blue Line Video

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶42

Games Associates, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka

¶43

and others reported in (2013) 2 KLJ 177.

¶44

Admittedly, petitioner Club is registered under

¶45

the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Having registered under the Societies Registration Act in accordance with law has been running certain activities in imparting sports activities to its members, entry is restricted to the members of the Club. The members of the Club are involved in playing games as stated above. When the petitioner is not involved in conducting or running any unlawful, illegal activities in the Club, respondents No.2 to 5 cannot insist upon obtaining license or permission for those games and sports activities for which no license is required under law. Of course, it is necessary for the petitioner to obtain license to run any of the activities/sports for which any license is prescribed under the law.

¶46

Learned counsel has also relied upon the

¶47

judgment of this Court in the case of Kings Social Club

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶49

Handigund Vs. State of Karnataka, in W.P.NO.105936/2022 dated 16.12.2022, wherein this Court in similarly situated circumstances has issued certain guidelines to the writ petitioner therein. Admittedly, on query to the petitioner's counsel, there is no installation of CCTV camera in the Club premises and she also submits that the entry is restricted only to the members of the Club by way of issue of identity cards and persons who are not members are not permitted to enter. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are insisting to obtain necessary license to run the activities belonging to the petitioner or would have to close down the Club is to be seen from the angle of whether the petitioner is running illegal and unlawful activities and if no such activities are being run by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to run the activities in the Club without any interference for sports activities as per law.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶52

9. The guidelines issued in paragraph No.2 of the

¶53

above said order are as under:

¶54

“(i) The petitioner shall install CC TV cameras at all 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 CC TV footage of atleast prior 15 days’ period shall be made available by the petitioner to the jurisdiction police, as and when called upon to do so.

¶55

(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.

¶56

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

¶57

(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 any game(s) of chance as per explanation (II) of Subsection (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.

¶58

(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 jurisdiction police find that the game(s) played is/are contrary to any law and in violation of the settled practice, it is open to them to take action against the petitioner and the offenders, in accordance with law.

¶59

(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.

¶60

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

¶61

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998 WP No. 106085 of 2024

¶62

(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 is/are found to have indulged in any unlawful or immoral activities.”

¶63

No order as to costs.”

¶64

Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of

¶65

this writ petition with the above guidelines.

¶66

It is needless to mention that respondent Nos.2

¶67

to 5 shall not unnecessarily interfere in the affairs of the petitioner Club unless they find unlawful activities being carried out.

¶68

It is made clear that this order would not restrict or restrain respondents No.2 to 5 from monitoring any of the activities being run in the petitioner Club, in accordance with law.

¶69

The petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶70

MRK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

¶71

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

Sarvodaya Social Club v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvodaya Social Club 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

Sri. M.Ansar Baig Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Sri Ramesh B.H.T. S/O Basavarajappa Vs Occupier

Doddamardansab Mohamadhaneefsab Nadaf Since Deceased by Lrs Kasimsab S/O Doddamardansab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Yashvant Subbanna Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

Greenwood Internatinoal English Medium Vs State of Karnataka

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar