The Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging violation of an order protecting a specific game of Rummy. The Court held that since the club played a different game (Kotha Mukka) and officials did not interfere with Rummy, no contempt action was warranted.
Contempt case closed; pending applications closed; no order as to costs.
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.994 of 2012
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31871 of 2011 dated 02.12.2011. The aforesaid order of this Court required the respondents not to interfere with any card game of Rummy (13 cards game), whatever be the stakes, being played in the clubs. They were, however, not precluded from entering into the clubs, and from taking action in terms of Section 5 of the A.P.Gaming Act (for short ‘the Act’); and, thereafter, to initiate penal proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 for violation of the provisions of the Act.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, it is stated that the respondent police officials inspected the club premises in the presence of mediators and found that Kotha Mukka (Lopala Bayata) was being played in the club; they had, therefore, registered a case under the provisions of the Act; Crime No.225 of 2012 was registered under Section 224 I.P.C. in Nandigama Police Station; and there are four cases pending with regards the petitioner-Club.
All that the order of this Court required the respondent to do is not to interfere with the game of Rummy being played in the club. The counter affidavit records that the members of the club were playing Kotha Mukka (Lopala Bayata) which is not the game of Rummy. Learned Government Pleader for Home states that no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. As the specific assertion in the counter affidavit is not denied by way of a reply affidavit and, as it is evident that the respondents have not interfered with the game of Rummy being played in the petitioner-club, I see no reason to proceed to take action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. The Contempt Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
04th September 2015. JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Contempt Case No.994 of 2012
Date: 04.09.2015
JSU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents interfered with the game of Rummy as alleged in the contempt petition.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Club
Respondent Police Officials
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
