Karnataka High Court
Koppa Recreation Club vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
snooker, sudko, scatting, carrom, chess, billiards,"-,c1icket. hockey, volley ball, table tennis, dot game, poker, coin' _ ganie, joker bonus and other skill games run by the petitioner in the name of and style Koppa Recreation C1ub--,».'"Building --. Koppa, Maddur Taluk, Mandya Districtand etc_,, This Writ Petition coming on Court passed the following: " o R Learned HCGP for the respondents. H C L 2 A
2. In l':havs...slought for an order directing the upon it to obtain license to inditslllpremises either under the Police Act;«olr'--undeLr of Licensing and Controlling of Places of Order and not to interfere in the 'lVl"'play~-Coll' oriente'd*""g'a1nes like Rummy, Poker, Chess and Wall Ball skill and other skill games and etc.' 3". submission of the learned counsel for the V' ""peVtitio"ner is that no activity necessitating obtaining of license under the Licensing Order is carried on in the premises of the l ' 'd-ispose'd iof. A. petitioner; that the activity of playing the games Rummy, Snooker/Billiards and Carr_om__etc._,§har'e--:fiot7inA.pthell' nature of gambling activity or game ot:Ich:i_nce; that~ are not prohibited or regulated,'~..Morelo-ver, VtheV:llp.lacepVVo.f petitioner is not a public place entry' restricted only to the members of and not to outsiders and on the part of the petitioner as conteinplated under Clause- 3 of the for the petitioner has reliegduon Court rendered in W.P. No.11843l", of '2ooe;'e4.V'd§cidéc1 on 9.11.2006 (M/S.SI-HVA ASSOCLATIOgN.VS;=.STATE=.QF KARNATAKA & OTHERS) and submits. txhatlx 'similar "terms this petition may also be HCGP appearing for the respondents submits 'that the. have not interfered and will not interfere with the V' '}1awiu1._ activities of the petitioner and they would take action the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activities. He further submits that the respondents will not insist the li petitioner for license for such of the activities for which no license is required.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments._rnade:
learned counsel for the parties and""Vperu_sc«d _:the7.lnaterials placed on record. The only c0n1plaint_'o'i7 petitioner the respondents are interfering the lawful-activi*tie"s"carried'V' on by it. Learned AGA deniedV:thefall.egations. made in the writ petition. Having circumstances of the case, I am uoflthe should not interfere ffof thefpetitioner. At the same permitted to take action according to indulges in any unlawful activity. Onidentical'factns};-this Court in Shiva's case (supra) has restrained therespoindents from interfering with the lawful activities of thepetitioner.
-- ' light of the above discussion, I pass the following ' Vorder:-- * KM . i
a) The respondents are directed fioxm i.nterfere_w:ithV:the lawful recreational activities fen, members of the petitioner3Associati_on.'V it
b) It is made clear that the 're_s'pondents«_ are at;1iberty to take any appropriate according "law, if the petitioner indulges (C) The Writ?e t1'tior:_' is disposedf-of accordingly.
Learned 1%; 1i'?'1"1niJFf.ed"' 'to------~"fi1e his memo of appearance fr"o1'h No costs.
JUDGE