Disposed

Nellore Club , Nellore, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Dec 2004WP/22923/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 22923 of 2004, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed a challenge by the Nellore Club against police interference with card games. The court held that members can play 13-card rummy, deemed a skill game, without interference. It further prohibited inspections that cripple club activities but allowed action against identified games of chance. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to interfere with lawful activities of playing 13-card rummy and prohibiting officials from causing inspection or posting advocate-commissioners to cripple club activities.

Nellore Club , Nellore, Vs The Government… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 22923 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nellore Club , Nellore, rep.by its Honorary Secretary Anam Mahesh Kumar Reddy, S/o Anam Venkata Subba Reddy,

¶9

aged 40 years, R/o H.No. 14/110, Kapu Street,

¶10

Trunk Road, Nellore.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

¶14

Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building,

¶15

Hyderabad.

¶16

2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nellore,

¶17

Nellore District.

¶18

3 The Inspector of Police, Nellore Urban, Nellore District.

¶19

4 The Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Nellore,

¶20

Nellore District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in directing the members of the petitioner Club not to play game of Rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game) as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner Club.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶25

O R D E R:

¶26

Petitioner is a club. Its grievance is that the respondents are interfering with its activities and preventing its members from playing rummy with stakes or in syndicate.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in State of A.P. v. K. Satyanarayana, the Supreme Court held that rummy with 13 cards is not a game of choice and it is a game of skill. He contends that Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 do not apply to such game and it falls within the meaning of game of ‘mere skill’ under Section 15 of that Act.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that under the guise of playing the game of rummy, the members of the petitioner are resorting to three cards play, which is purely the one of choice.

¶29

As part of its activities, the petitioner is maintaining a card room. It is stated that the members of the petitioner club are playing only the 13 card rummy, sometimes with stakes and sometimes in syndicate. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, the respondents cannot interfere with the playing of rummy by the members of the petitioner. However, if it is noticed that the members of the petitioner are playing any game of choice, including the one with three cards, steps can certainly be taken in accordance with law to prohibit and penalize such activities.

¶30

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not interfere with the lawful activities of the members of the petitioner, namely, playing of rummy with 13 cards with stakes or in syndicate and in case, they are found to be playing any other game of skill, it shall be open to the respondents to take such action as is open to them in law. It is also made clear that under the guise of causing inspection, the officials or advocate-commissioners shall not be posted and the

¶31

activities of the club cannot be crippled. No order as to costs.

¶32

10^th December, 2004

¶33

pan

¶34

¶35

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,

¶36

Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nellore,

¶37

Nellore District. 3 The Inspector of Police, Nellore Urban, Nellore District. 4 The Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Nellore,

¶38

Nellore District.

¶39

5 Two C.Cs to the Govt.Pleader for Home, High Court building, Hyderabad (OUT). 6 Two C.D.copies.

Nellore Club , Nellore, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nellore Club , Nellore, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Suda Thirupathiaiah Vs The State House Officer

M. Subbarao S/o Venkat Subbaiah Vs Joint Collector, Prakasam District at

R. Raju Goud S/o late Narahari Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and

P. Saradha, Vs The District Collector

Sindhe Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnamurthy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Mr. Pramod Harjani, Vs the Commissioner of Police