Shambulingeshwar Recreation ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shambulingeshwar Recreation ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2009

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

m THE HIGH coum" OF KARNATAKA --f f j

czacuxr BENCH AT DHMZWADM  _ .    *

mares THIS THE 12*" my  FE3€;:JAav%2009%T 

BEFORE' A
HON'BLE M:2.JusT:cE ,A[§0HAh:--'Si§.A'NATAN2s£%Q.£3DAR
WR.'_[_T PETITION Nﬁfezeszi/:gm_¢£;__.gwPoug)

Between :

Sha1nb1z1i:1gesI1iE?ar F§:*,creati0n Assoéiaﬁon
Dev"ik;ereIROad    *  '

Sirsi   A    

Replay its Pmsident  ,\ -.

Sri Ganapti Hcgtic

Aged 439 years, 039;' Business

 1%,io.s,i;-si _ A %%%%% ~ .. PEPITIONER

(By ;*s;.f1é;::¢}1:§g':»:de:; Adv.,)

~ 1;-».'I'he state; «sf Karnataka
' .,Re;p._}3y its Secretary

" .§~i:2m«:;: Departxmitnt

~  'yfidilana Souciha
  _,,_Ba:r1ga1ore

  '   Superizmtendent 0f Poiice



Karwar District
Karwar

3. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Sirsi
Karwar Sis: 

4. {ltircie Police Inspector
Sirsi, Karwar Dist.

5. Sub-Inspector ofPo1ice  
New Market Yard Poking: Statitn':1._  
Ka1warDist.    ;.;.RE.TSPONDENTS

{By Sri K.B.gm§yapa1§, Ada}  % "

 ._ VPf._'_'.._V 

This VV3;*i£A.Ii5't:_titi€-.n' isfiéed under Articles 226 8:. 227 of thf:
{3onstimt:ion--_ of vInd.ia_»prayiz;g'v'--t0 direct the respondents not to
insist upon the petif§io_n&r__Ttg1'..:)btain iicence for the piay of
snooker/biliiards a:1d.game in the schedule premises
either under the VKaV1i:at:'--21(a'*"Po1ice Act or under the Licensing

V and  c§i'..t_}_f1é: Place of Public Amusemrznt Order, etc.

 'V  « , : Thi:;?;'Li?w'1§jii'%?'etition coming on for preliminary hearing this
'day, mad; the following :-

ORDER

Heart} the learnéd counsel cm eitltaer sides. According £0 tha petitiener, it is an association V '« i*ég§stered under ma provisions of Karnataka Societies W'

4. Learned Government Advocate has adn1ittexd".%he;t the petitioner is running 3 Recreation Club. _ them, they have not visited the peiitionezfse ii " = Club at any point of time. It is furtiger respondents never insisted the peﬁﬁeiaef to each licence from the respondents.

From the submission Of it is cheer to me that the has the allegations maée against A Be ti1at'-- as has consistently held that no such, is required to run the ."R¢Cr€a_ﬁi3ﬁ; Cilub. A eeeee s i 'V Therefere, iiiftizxe circumstances, the Writ petition is ef that the petitioner need not obta;i3:1 W H " !i<:ence* the respondents to run the Association 'g;;jjt1"'._VVt0"i'ienabIe its members to play chess, mmm, Vi iredﬁmton and mmmy and other activities which can be V' -5- carried without obtaining a licence either urider.---3:116 Kamaiaka Felice Act or under the Licensing of Places of Public Amusement Order, 19'?(). u this erdar shall not come in the waj}V df «1:_h-:3 from visiting the club to monitor its actiVities a:1d'vt0 'V action if any illegal actjvitie$""L'§i"a the petitioner.

40*:/W     Q

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court