Allowed

Madras Aryan Club v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC11 Mar 2016WP/2104/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged police interference with the Madras Aryan Club. The court, relying on precedent, permitted the petition by conditioning the club to forbid Rummy with stakes and restricting police inspections to instances of reliable information regarding illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by laying down four specific conditions restricting the club from gambling with stakes and limiting police inspection powers.

Madras Aryan Club Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.2104 of 2016

¶6

Madras Aryan Club,
Rep. by its Secretary,
No.44, Ramanuja Street,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai-600 021. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Veppery, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet Police Station,
Washermenpet, Chennai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thondiarpet Range,
Thondiarpet, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
H-3, Thondiarpet, Police Station,
Thondiarpet, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents and their subordinates from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner club in any way without any reasonable cause at the premises at No.44, Ramanuja Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan for Mr.A.Santhana Sinakarthan For respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Additional Government Pleader

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner-club situated at No.44, Ramanuja Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai,

¶12

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been averred by the petitioner as follows:-

¶13

2-1.The petitioner-club is one of the oldest clubs in Chennai City. The petitioner-club was established in the year 1890 and in the year 1930, it was registered bearing Registration No.17/1929-1930 under the provision of Societies Registration Act. The petitioner-club was functioning for the past 116 years. The Registration of Club is renewed periodically by the Office of the Registrar of Societies. The land and building in which the club is functioning was gifted by Sir Pitty Thiyagarajar and he is the founder of the club. He has also established education institution for the education of the power students. The main objects of the club are as follows_

¶14

i)to afford to its members, facilities for social, physical, moral and intellectual development.

¶15

ii)to afford to its members, facilities for games out-door and indoor, such as Cricket, Badminton, Foot Ball, Table Tennis, Chess, Carrom, Cards and such other games as the club determines from time to time.

¶16

iii)to afford to its members facilities for dramatic, Musical Entertainments.

¶17

iv)to maintain a Reading Room, a library of books, publications and periodicals of interest to sportsmen and to diffuse knowledge of sports and games and the ideals of sportsmanship among its members.

¶18

v)to afford medical and educational assistance to its members and their families to the extent possible etc.,

¶19

There are various types of members likely Honorary Members, Donor Members, Like Members, Active Members, Associate Members all the members pay subscription monthly, yearly and life time. There are certain conditions in the by-law to admit a person as a member. The by-laws have been formulated and the club functions in accordance with by-laws. The Annual General Body meeting used to elect distinguished persons as patrons who are interested in sports, social and cultural activities.

¶20

2-2.As a token of approving and indicating continued commitment and dedication of the club in the arena of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

promotion of sports, the petitioner-club has got the reputation of being acknowledged as an affiliated unit of Chennai District Carom Association and Chennai Football Association and it is also happened to be a privileged member of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. The Club is, in order to achieve its objects in promotion of sports, also regularly sponsoring teams in the division league matches being conducted by Chennai Football Association and also regularly sponsoring teams in the IV Division Cricket matches being conducted by the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association.

¶22

2-3.The petitioner-club is a non-profiting institution operating for the cause of promotion of sports and cultural heritage by its members. The club premises situated at No.44, Ramanujar Street, Chennai, by no stretch of imagination could be construed or treated in par with a fulltime private club in any sense. Primarily, the said premises is an officiating place to run, organize and manage various sports and allied activities of the club. The premises are never under the usage for any of the activities which the private clubs are usually carrying on. Some private clubs started mushrooming in the said area and they without any license indulge in illegal activities for which the respondents-Police initiated action against them in accordance with law. The respondents on false information started to interfere with the peaceful activities of the petitioner-club. On the advise of the respondents, the petitioner club has installed CCTV Cameras and all the activities of the petitioner-club are recorded. While so, the respondents issued a show cause notice under Section 34 of the Chennai City Police Act and directed the petitioner-club to obtain licence. The petitioner-club by its letter dated 11.09.2015 informed the respondent that the petitioner-club would not come under the purview of the said provision, to obtain licence under Section 34 of the Chennai City Police Act and also enclosed necessary documents. Since the respondents are persistently interfering with the peaceful function of the petitioner-club, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

¶23

3.The 4^th respondent has filed a counter, inter alia, contending that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-club under Section 34 of the Chennai City Police Act, for obtaining a Public Entertainment License. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner made a reply on 11.09.2015 requesting to exonerate and exempt the petitionerclub from taking licence. The Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai sent a Memorandum vide Rc.No.119/19114/Licence (NZ)/2015 based on the Commissioner of Police, Chennai viz., Memo in E1/906301/2015 dated 28.09.2015 in respect of the petitioner-club, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermenpet District to take further action on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application made by the petitioner with respect to public

¶24

entertainment licence. The 4^th respondent made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Authorities vide Rc.No.112/H3 PS/CPO/2015 on 22.10.2015 and 07.01.2016. The findings of the enquiry read as follows_

¶25

a)The petitioner made an application to grant Public Entertainment Licence for his Aryan Club at No.44, Ramanuja Iyyer Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-21.

¶26

b)The said premises is situated in the middle of Thiruvottriyur High Road and G.A.Road wherein large number of public assembled for textile shops and nearby also a Jain Higher Secondary is situated.

¶27

c)Further, a case was also registered against the persons who are members of Aryan Club for gambling on 16.08.2015 in Crime No.928 of 2015 under Section 45 & 46 of the City Police Act on the file of the H3 Police Station, Thondiarpet and the same is pending. Again the said persons made an application for granting permission.

¶28

d)For the purpose of gambling such as Mangatha and Rummy, they made an application for granting licence under the guise of Recreation Club. The merchants and Colies are lossing their money in that gambling and as a result of this, their families are shattered. Hence, it is recommended to refuse to grant permission to the gambling club in the name of Recreation Club.

¶29

e)Further, it is recommended that permission can be grant only to the playing Cricket, Carom, Table Tennis, Football and it came to know that the petitioner's club indulged in playing rummy by issuing token which is amount to gambling and hence, licence cannot be granted such gambling.

¶30

According to the respondents, the petitioner asked for licence to play cards with gambling, which is prohibited by law. Thus, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶31

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

5.In an identical situation, in the case of The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others Vs.Mahalakshmi Cultural Association, in W.A.No.2287 of 2011, by judgment dated 22.03.2012, by making detailed discussion, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows_

¶33

“21.Playing of cards perhaps may be for relaxing oneself or for an entertainment provided such play has limitations. Playing of cards with stakes has two evils i.e., it corrupts the mind of the players to become addict and it makes most of the players bankrupt. Discussions above undoubtedly point against the practice of indulging in gambling, be it rummy or other similar games, where wagering or betting is involved. We may also refer to the ordinary use of the expression "winning". The word "winning" has been given the following meaning in the Universal Dictionary of English Language, namely, "Amount won, esp. money won in betting." In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "winning" is given the following meaning, namely, "Things or sums gained, gains, profits, earnings in mod.use chiefly applied to money won by gaming or betting." In Webster's Third International Dictionary, the word "winning" is given the following meaning, namely, "Something one wins esp. the money won by success in competition." Therefore, in the event a place is used for gambling, it will be termed to be a gambling house and such gambling would amount to an illegal activity in the event the member or the guests or the club/association make profit out of such gambling. The object of the Association is also to allow the members to play cards not amounting to gambling.

¶34

We may also refer to yet another aspect as to whether the guests can be also allowed to play rummy. As per the objects of the Association, it is entitled to entertain members and guests. So long as the guests are allowed to use the association premises for an activity which is not illegal, the Police has no authority to proceed against them, as the Association would be entitled to allow them to avail the facilities. In the event the guests are found playing rummy (13 cards) with stakes, they would be also considered as indulging in gambling.

¶35

In the present case, at the time the Association premises was raided, the police officers found 56 persons were playing cards for stake and from whom 178 tokens indicating betting were seized and the cash used in the

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

gambling amounting to Rs.6,95,000/- was also recovered. It was also found that 5 persons were playing cards using tokens issued in lieu of cash for monetary gain. This will indicate that they shall be evidence to show that the premises was used as a common gaming house in terms of Section 43 of the Act and those found in the premises either with tokens or found playing with tokens should be considered as indulging in gambling.

¶38

On the basis of the above discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions:-

¶39

(1)The game of rummy (13 cards) is only a game of skill even though an element of chance is also involved.

¶40

(2)In the event rummy is played by the members or the guests without stakes, the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act are not attracted.

¶41

(3)In the event rummy is played by the members or the guests with stakes, the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act are attracted.

¶42

(4)In the event the club/association either allows its members or guests to play rummy with stakes or make any profit or gain out of such gambling, the Police has the authority to invoke the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act.

¶43

(5)In order to ascertain as to whether the premises is used as a gaming house for gambling, the Police is entitled to invoke Section 23 of the Act.

¶44

In view of the above, we modify the order of the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal with the following directions:

¶45

(1)The respondent-Association shall not indulge in any activity by allowing its members or the guests to play rummy (13 cards) with stakes and make profit or gain.

¶46

(2)The Police are entitled to take action in the event any illegal activity is carried on in the association premises.

¶47

(3)In respect of the FIR registered by the Police against those 56 persons and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others who were said to have indulged in

¶48

illegal gambling activity as per the raid conducted on 10.08.2011, it is open to the Police to proceed further as per law and it is for the Association, its members and their guests to defend the same in the manner known to law, as the criminal action was initiated after a valid raid conducted on 10.08.2011 by the Police.

¶49

(4)The Police shall not disturb the respondent-Association frequently under the guise of inspection without there being any reliable information as to the illegal activities of the association or its members or the guests.

¶50

6.The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case also. Hence, by following the above said judgment, this Court is the opinion that by imposing the following conditions, the present writ petition could be disposed of. Accordingly, the following order is passed_

¶51

(1)The petitioner-Club shall not indulge in any activity by allowing its members or the guests to play rummy (13 cards) with stakes and make profit or gain.

¶52

(2)The Police are entitled to take action in the event any illegal activity is carried on in the association premises.

¶53

(3)In respect of the FIR registered by the Police against those persons, who were said to have indulged in illegal gambling activity in the petitioner-club, it is open to the Police to proceed further as per law and it is for the petitioner-club, its members and their guests to defend the same in the manner known to law, as the criminal action was initiated after a valid raid conducted by the Police.

¶54

(4)The Police shall not disturb the petitioner-club frequently under the guise of inspection without there being any reliable information as to the illegal activities of the club or its members or the guests.

¶55

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶56

//True Copy//

¶57

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶58

ssv

¶59

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶60

¶61

The commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Veppery, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet Police Station,
Washermenpet, Chennai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thondiarpet Range,
Thondiarpet, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
H-3, Thondiarpet, Police Station,
Thondiarpet, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.A.Santhana Sinakarthan, Advocate, S.R.No.16086
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.16328
W.P.No.2104 of 2016
SV(CO)
CA(30/03/2016)

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Madras Aryan Club v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madras Aryan Club v. The Commissioner of Police

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

R.Priya, Minor Vs the General Manager

V.Vasantharajan Vs P.Annamalai IAS

M.Kaliyaperumal Vs The District Collector

R.Venkatesan, Vs The District Collector

D.Percivul Pericles Vs The Principal, School of Law

N.Mohan Vs The District Revenue Officer