Karnataka High Court
Sanna Adike Belegarara Recreation ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: ILR2000KAR4822, 2001(1)KARLJ335, 2001 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 248, (2001) 1 KANT LJ 335
Bench: P.V. Reddi, A.M. Farooq
ORDER
1. In all these writ petitions the petitioner got themselves registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 as Clubs or Recreation Associations. It is their case that the admission is restricted to the members and their guests and the club/association is catering to the socio-cultural needs of the members. It is contended that nothing but lawful activities are being carried on in the premises of the club/association and no games of chance or events of public amusement are being conducted in the premises. It is further averred that amongst the card games, only Rummy which is declared to be a game of skill by the Supreme Court in its judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v K. Satyanarayana, is being played. In addition to such card games, it is stated that certain indoor games such as chess, carrom and badminton are allowed to be played by the members. The petitioners allege that the police authorities who are respondents herein are insisting on a licence being taken out under the provisions of the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment Order promulgated under the Karnataka Police Act and also interfering with the lawful activities that are being carried on in the club premises by way of raids and surveillance. The petitioners therefore, pray for a declaration that a licence is not needed and seek a direction to the police authorities not to interfere with the lawful activities.
2. When the writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge T.S. Thakur, J., the learned Judge referred to a judgment of Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat in Rama Recreation Association v Commissioner of Police, wherein it was held that a club in which only its members are permitted to engage in any diversion or recreational activities, need not take out a licence, after having referred to the definition of "places of public amusement" and "places of public entertainment" under Section 2(14) and (15) of the Karnataka Police Act. This decision was followed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos. 13674 to 13692 of 1993, decided on 9-7-1996 who gave the following directions:
These petitions are allowed by declaring that the petitioners are not liable to obtain licences, if they do not admit members of public and if no gambling or games of chance are played in their clubs. However, it should be made clear that this will not come in the way of the police authorities inspecting the premises of petitioners to verify whether any illegal activities are carried on in the premises and to take necessary action, if there is any violation of provision of law.
3. Learned Single Judge who initially heard these writ petitions, after having referred to the pleadings and the aforementioned decisions of this Court, made certain comments with regard to the mushroom growth of the societies like those of the petitioners the modus operandi of which is not what it appears to be on paper. The learned Judge felt that certain amount of regulatory mechanism is required to curb the potential of these clubs indulging in illegal activities or causing nuisance to the neighbours. Learned Judge felt that this is a fit case to be referred to the Division Bench. We extract the penultimate para of the order of reference:
"Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that the issue whether the petitioner and similar other Societies who have established what they describe as clubs truly answer the description of the said expression. Even if they do whether keeping in view the fact that public can secure admission to such places on payment of a nominal fee without any satisfactory mechanism providing for selection of those admitted would constitute admission of the public for amusement or entertainment within the meaning of Section 2(14) and (15) of the Karnataka Police Act. Yet another question that would arise is whether the expression 'to which public are admitted' used in Section 2(14) and (15) of the Act, refers only to "public in general" or can be interpreted to mean even those who comprise the membership of the Association or the Club. The correctness of the view expressed in Rama Recreation Association's case, supra, may also fall for consideration. In the totality of the above circumstances, I deem it fit to refer these writ petitions to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the questions indicated above".
4. That is how these writ petitions have come up for hearing before this Division Bench.
5. The respondents, in their statement of objections, have stated that they never interfered with the activities of the petitioner-associations nor had they insisted on obtaining licence or permission under the provisions of the Licensing and Controlling of Place of Public Entertainment Order. Moreover, there is an interesting revelation in the statement of objections that the petitioner-associations are non-functional and are not carrying on any activity as alleged by the petitioners. In some of the writ petitions viz., W.P. No. 3524 of 1998, it is stated that no address or door number which is mentioned in the registration certificate exists and on enquiry, the owner of the building had given a statement that he did not let out any room to any club. In W.P. No. 4436 of 1998, it is pointed out that the admission is not only restricted to the members but certain non-members are also entertained. It is pointed out that the bye-laws and rules produced by the petitioner in W.P. No. 4436 of 1998 show that certain games of chance were played. But, in fact it is not so. Bye-laws and rules do not support such stand. In W.P. No. 1764 of 1998, it is mentioned in the statement of objections that a case under the Karnataka Police Act was booked in Crime No. 117 of 1998 for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of Police Act against eleven persons who were engaged in gambling.
6. The respondents having stated that there was no interference with the activities of the petitioners nor was there insistence on obtaining licence, nevertheless asserted their power to check unlawful activities which has the potential of giving rise to public nuisance or other offences. It is contended that by registering the club under the Societies Registration Act, the petitioners cannot carry on activities such as gambling, serving of liquor and conducting games of chance within the premises of the association.
7. In the wake of the averments in the statement of objections which in most of the cases stand unrebutted, there is no need to give any positive direction. There is no material before us to substantiate the allegation that the respondents have been interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner-Associations which they are entitled to carry on to promote the objectives of the Association. The question whether the petitioners are in fact running the club or association is itself a disputed question of fact in some of the cases. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not appropriate to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution after probing into the disputed questions of fact and on hypothetical considerations. The petitioners have come forward with bald averments without specific details. Equally so the respondents have answered the contentions in the writ petitions in a very general fashion and to some extent in a contradictory manner. Recording the statements of the respondents, the writ petitions could have been closed without any further observation or clarifications. However, as the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench and expressed some doubts about the decision in Rama Recreation Association's case (referred supra), we consider it expedient to say a few words on this aspect.
8. As far as the judgment in Rama Recreation Association's case, supra, interpreting the definition under Section 2(14) and (15) of the Karnataka Police Act is concerned, no exception can be taken to the view expressed by the learned Judge. But, as our learned brother Justice Thakur has pointed out in the reference order, there is every possibility of the public gaining entry on payment of certain fee to these societies registered ostensibly for the purpose of running recreational clubs for members. The scope for misuse of the premises and infringement of the objectives with which the societies are formed cannot be ruled out. But, having regard to the clear-cut definitions under Section 2(14) and (15) of the Karnataka Police Act, the expression "Public" therein cannot be reasonably construed to cover members of the club or their genuine guests. The hallmark of a Member's Club or an Association of members is that all the members have an equal stake in it, their internal management vests with the members and those who are in effective management are agents or trustees of the members. We therefore find no legal basis to doubt the correctness of the view expressed in Rama Recreation Association's case, supra. We also agree with the learned referring Judge that it is desirable to evolve a regulatory mechanism to ensure that the societies running the clubs do not transgress their limits and indulge in objectionable activities. While separate legislation may be necessary for this purpose, the provisions in Karnataka Police Act and other allied enactments and the provisions of Cr. P.O. could be pressed into service to check the unlawful activities that may be indulged therein and to prevent public nuisance. The authorities concerned can very well verify whether the so-called Members' Club is only a facade for public amusement and if there is enough material in support of such conclusion, action as per law can be taken. At the same time, it is made clear that the police authorities concerned should not take law into their own hands and harass even genuine clubs carrying on bona fide activities by organising frequent raids. While surveillance and checks cannot be ruled out, the endeavour should be only to ensure that unlawful activities amounting to offences are not carried on in the guise of running recreational clubs or associations. For instance, in one of the writ petitions, a stand has been taken by the respondents that even playing the game of Rummy amounts to gambling activity. We are surprised that such a stand is taken even thirty years after the decision of the Supreme Court. At the same time, as observed by the Supreme Court in that very decision (referred to supra), if there is betting or some other form of gambling associated with the Game or Rummy is allowed to be played in the club as a source of making profit or gain by certain individuals running the show, it might perhaps cross the dividing line and fall in the objectionable zone of gambling house. Ultimately, we would like to stress that the authorities concerned should not act with a presumption that every society registered for the purpose of running the club will be indulging in unlawful activities and with the realisation that the power of surveillance and raids is to be used in bona fide exercise of powers to enforce the provisions of the Act, but not to harass genuine clubs carrying on lawful activities.
9. With these observations and clarifications, writ petitions are disposed of.