Madras High Court
Theni Penniquic Recreation Club vs The District Collector on 22 December, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P(MD)No.21067 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 Theni Penniquic Recreation Club represented by its Secretary, A.Santhosekumar, A Registered Society, Registered No.178/2014, Survey No.196/2, Near Karnal Penniquic Bus Stand, Theni Post, Theni District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Theni Town Police Station, Theni, Theni District. : Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the third Respondent herein from interfering with the day today activities of the Petitioner's association to play rummy, situate at Survey No.196/2, Near Karnal Penniquic Bus Stand, Theni Post, Theni District without following the due process of law and pass such further or other orders. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran ^For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam, Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
********** Heard both sides.
2.According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is a Recreation Club registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Petitioner's Association has been established and had commenced its recreation activities on and from 23.10.2014. The main object of the Petitioner/Association is to encourage its members in games and sports activities and introduce, develop and create skills in new games, to conduct training for the children in the games, to prepare the members and children to participate in Tournaments at the District Level. Besides the above, games like Kabadi, Tennis, Basket Ball, Volley Ball, Rummy with stakes and other indoor games are conducted.
3.The main grievance of the Petitioner is that on 20.11.2014, the Third Respondent has entered into the Petitioner's Association Office premises and interfered in and out the recreation activities. The Third Respondent has not found and noted anything contrary to the objects of the Petitioner's Association and no complaint is made against the said Association. Also that, no case was registered by the Third Respondent against the Petitioner/Association.
4.The Petitioner preferred a complaint to the First and Second Respondents that the Third Respondent visited the Petitioner/Association and caused disturbance. However, the First and Second Respondents asked the Secretary and other Office Bearers to appear before the Third Respondent. The Petitioner and other Office Bearers had appeared before the First and Second Respondents and without any enquiry, they were made to wait for a long time and directed as to leave the place.
5.Added further, even after the representation of the Petitioner and request being made to the First and Second Respondents, the First and Second Respondents have not chosen to correct their ways, but continued to interfere with the Petitioner's lawful recreation activities and day-to-day affairs. Hence, the Petitioner sent a representation to the First and Second Respondents on 25.11.2014 to intervene in the matter and to issue necessary direction to the Third Respondent herein to desist from interfering with their lawful activities. Since the Respondents had not taken any action in the subject matter in issue, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition before this Court.
6.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the order of this Court, dated 07.11.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.17918 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, in Paragraph Nos.4 and 5, it is observed and held as follows:
?4.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of the order dated 20.10.2010 in W.P.(MD) No.12489 of 2014 (R.S.Recreation Club, rep. by its Secretary vs. The District Collector, Theni District and others) and emphatically submits that the said order passed by this Court in the writ petition also squarely applies to the facts of the present writ petition. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above Writ Petition, it is observed and held as follows:
"2. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Anandham Manamagil Mandram v. The Superintendent of Police, reported in 2009(4) CTC 264, has issued certain directions. The directions are as follows:-
(i)The petitioner and the members of the Club are entitled to carry on lawful acitivies within their premises and there should not be any interference from the police authorities, so long as their acitivies are not in violation of the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867/Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930;
(ii)In the normal circumstances, there should be no interference in the lawful functioning of the Clubs by the Police. It is not permissible for the police to enter the Club premises as a routine measure, so long as the Clubs are functioning within the frame work of law;
(iii)If the police authorities have specific information or reasonable doubt that the activities carried on by the Club or its members are not in accordance with law or they indulge in unlawful activities in violation of the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867/Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 or any other enacment, it would be open to them, after recording reasons in the General Diary maintained in the Police Station, to proceed to enter the Club premises, conduct investigation, interrogate those who involve themselves in such activities and take appropriate action on merits and as per law;
(iv)While exercising the powers conferred on the Police authorities, they should follow the mandatory provision as contained in Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930/Public Gambling Act, 1867;
(v)It is always open to the Club or its members to challenge the action taken by the Police, if it was not in accordance with law;
(vi)In case the Police authorities were of the opinion that a situation has arisen to suspend the operation of the Club in exercise of the powers conferred, they have to issue an order in writing. When there is no authority granted to the Police to issue an order of suspension orally, they are not entitled to pass such oral orders; and
(vii)Before passing orders for the purpose of closure of the Club, in exercise of the powers conferred on the authorities, they should follow the principles of natural justice. The Club should be given an opportunity to submit their objections and if so desired, a further opportunity of personal hearing should also be given.
3.Following the earlier order passed by this Court in Anandham Manamagil Mandram's case cited supra, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the same directions, as extracted above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs."
5.Therefore, this Court keeping in tune with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12489 of 2010 dated 20.10.2010 dispose of the present Writ Petition on the same directions?.
7.Per contra, it is the impact submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 that the Respondents have not interfered with the Petitioner's recreational activities and as such it is not open to the Petitioner's Association to take a contra stand in the subject matter in issue.
8.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that this Court had passed orders in W.P(MD)No.17918 of 2014 after following the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.12489 of 2010, dated 20.10.2014, this Court disposes of the present Writ Petition on the same directions.
9.With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.12.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes smn To 1.The District Collector, Theni District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Theni Town Police Station, Theni, Theni District. M.VENUGOPAL, J. smn ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.21067 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 22.12.2014