Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
M. J. Sivani and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 1995, (arising out of SLP No. 11012 of 1991) with C. A. Nos. 6343-6358 of 1994 and 4614-27, 4629-33 etc. etc. of 1995 and W. P. Nos. 599, 718 of 1994 and 100, 182 of 1995 (SLP Nos. 10065-78, 18271-75 etc. of 1994 and 675, 2347-53 etc of 1995) with Cont. Petn. Nos. 38-51 of 1995 in (SLP Nos. 10065-78 of 1994)
Decided on 17-4-1995.
Constitution Of india,1950 - Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 - Mysore Act - Section 2(7) - Madras City Police Act, - Section, 34 - Claim of applicant - Public interest - Tamil Nadu Government in GOMS and allied When Commissioner of Police Bangalore exercising power and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements or short Bangalore Order called upon appellants to obtain under that Order they challenged his power and jurisdiction on diverse grounds- single Judge held that video game is a game covered by Bangalore Order appellants are required get play video games- It was further held that it does not violate their fundamental right Constitution- Division Bench–Held, material or gist thereof must be brought to notice of applicant and an opportunity given to meet grounds or such material- It would be open to party to make a representation in that behalf or he may place any other material in support of his contention to persuade authority to come to a different conclusion or to disabuse any prejudice against appellant- If facts are in acute dispute request for personal hearing may be extended authority then is required to consider objections or grounds put forth in support of claim of applicant or relevancy or otherwise of adverse material authority is entitled to grant or reject enjoined authority has to record reasons in support of its decision of rejecting application which includes renewal and should communicate same applicant Court on an application made by appellants directed Commissioner to consider objections and to pass appropriate orders within receipt of High Court order- Counsel respondents placed before sample order passed by Commissioner on application reasons recorded therein he rejected application namely pending appeal in this Court- order shows that it was communicated to address Wonderland Avenue Road Bangalore- Counsel for appellants stated order has not yet been received- Court have no material before us to accept contention- Court may put record stand of State counsel - same being that Commissioner would consider representation if any reason given is non-existent or is deemed not germane where after fresh order containing reasons would be passed Tamil Nadu that authorities are refusing to grant and action therefore is arbitrary- It is seen that Commissioner has banned exhibiting of only those video games specified in body of judgment and noted High Court and permitted exhibition of games of skill in an appropriate case- Commissioner rejects any application on irrelevant grounds it may be open to aggrieved party to have its legality impugned in an appropriate proceedings - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
K. RAMASWAMY, J. :—Leave granted in SLP Nos. 11012/91, 10065-78 / 94, 18271-75 / 94, 18617-18630, 18316, 22759-22763 / 94, 22865-70 / 94, 675 / 95, 2347-53 / 95, 6437-6440 / 95, SLP................../ 95 (CC 1306).
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1303-23 / 90 dated September 17, 1990 and of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 404 / 86 and batch dated December 28, 1993. Since common questions of law arise in these cases, they are disposed of by common judgment.
3. The primary question is whether video games require to be regulated under the respective Mysore Police Act, 1963 and the notifications issued thereunder and the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the orders of the Tamil Nadu Government in GOMS No. 166-O dated January 18, 1993 and the allied. When the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, exercising the power under the Licencing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989, (for short Bangalore Order) called upon the appellants to obtain licences under that Order, they challenged his power and jurisdiction on diverse grounds. The single Judge held that video game is a game covered by Bangalore Order, the appellants are required to get licence thereunder to play the video games. It was further held that it does not violate their fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. The Division Bench upheld the view of the single Judge. Equally, Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the Madras City Police Act and the Order of the Government, placed reasonable restrictions on the right to carry on video games. It does not violate Articles 19(1)(g) and 21. Video games are games requiring licence under the Act and the Orders. The survey of working of the video games by a committee of high level police officers and a practising advocate who appeared for some of the appellants in the High Court, found the mal-practices committed in conducting the games. The video game is a game covered by the Act and the Order. The ban imposed on the named games as games of chance and permitting the rest of the games to be of games of skill was in public interest. The conditions of licence are not arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, the action of the Commissioner was within the power under the Act or the Order.
4. The main thrust in these appeals is whether the video games attract the relevant orders and is a game within the definition of gaming defined under the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 or the Madras City Police Act or of the Mysore Act etc. The contention of the appellants is that it does not involve collection, soliciting, receiving or distribution of winning of prizes nor does it involve wagering. There is no element of betting or wagering in the business conducted by the appellants while operating video games. The definition of gaming, therefore, does not get attracted to video gaming. The space occupied by the machines used for video gaming is very small. It is neither like a theatre nor a public place. Therefore, it does not (sic) a common gaming house defined under the respective Acts. The games conducted in the respective shops of the appellants do not involve of any money transaction except collection of non-refundable charges for tokens for playing game. The player is rewarded on winning as many number of tokens as he can obtain by skill and such token he so gains gives him another chance to play. The tokens are not exchangeable for any cash or money. That apart, the games are conducted only for amusement and to pass off the time. The essential requirement to bring any game within the definition of gaming as defined under the Act, is completely lacking. The customers are entertained purely for amusement. The video games are, therefore, neither illegal nor unjustified. Therefore, the appellants are not required to obtain any licence from the concerned licensing authority.
5. Sec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
