Single judge disposed of a contempt case alleging violation of a non-interference order regarding a club’s rummy activities. The court dismissed the case due to specific denial in the counter affidavit that respondents instructed closure.
Contempt case dismissed; no proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No. 112 OF 2012
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court, dated 29.9.2011 in W.P.No.26145 of 2011 and batch, whereby the respondents were directed not to interfere with the respondent club permitting its members to play the card game of rummy. The respondents were, however, permitted to initiate penal proceedings, and to exercise statutory powers under Section 5 or any other provision of the A.P. Gaming Act.
In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is alleged that the respondents had made the petitioners close all their activities on the pretext that one person, who lost money in the card game, had committed suicide. They would assert that the police officials had no power to order closure of the activities of a club.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Kachiguda police station, it is stated that the respondents never asked the petitioner to close down their activities; these allegations are made only to prevent the police from taking action in accordance with law; and the respondents did not interfere with the members of the petitioner club playing rummy with stakes/syndicate.
In view of the specific denial in the counter affidavit of the respondents having asked the petitioner to close down their club, I
see no reason to proceed against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The contempt case is dismissed.
___________ 26-03-2012
asp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should proceed against respondents for alleged willful violation of non-interference orders given specific denial in counter affidavit.
Whether police officials have power to order closure of a club’s rummy activities.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
petitioners
respondents
Inspector of Police, Kachiguda police station
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
