Important Point—High Court cannot issue a Writ even without a cause of action.

1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the action of the respondents in interfering/obstructing the petitioners clubs from conducting card room for playing the games of Rummy/Syndicate with stakes by their members and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.4103 of 2017 was filed by the MLAS’ Colony Residents Welfare and Cultural Association, Hyderabad, whereas, W.P.No.4636 of 2017 was filed by the Advocates’ Recreation Club, Karimnagar, W.P. No.8478 of 2017 was filed by one Navodaya Sports and Cultural Association, West Godavari district and W.P. No.8717 of 2017 was filed by one ABS Town Hall in the same district.

3. The common case of the petitioners is that they were registered under the Societies Registration Act and have been conducting their affairs within the purview of aims and objectives and bye-laws of their respective societies. Their activities are confined to the members of the association and they are maintaining a card room where games of skill only are allowed to be played. Their games of skill do not fall under the definition of gambling and in spite of the same the respondents are interfering with their activities.

4. Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.4103 and 8478 of 2017 denying the averments of interference in the activities of the petitioners associations and specifically stating that the petitioners approached this Court on mere apprehension. However, it is also stated that ‘Rummy’ is not a total skill game, but an element of chance is also involved. It is common knowledge that several clubs are facilitating the games of chance under the guise of providing games of skill and in order to curb such illegal activities the respondents are entering the premises of such recreation clubs to ascertain whether any game of chance other than ‘Rummy’ was being played and whether any illegal activities were being carried on therein.

5. In view of the denial of the interference and the right of the respondents to inspect the premises in order to curb the illegal activities, if any, taking place, when this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petitions, the learned counsel relied on earlier orders of this Court and also on the decisions reported in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana (1995 Supp (1) SCC 461) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hirendra Pal Singh (2011) 5 SCC 305) and submitted that in view of the earlier orders, this Court has to follow the same orders and dispose of the present batch of cases on similar lines.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submitted that the game of ‘Rummy’ is not a game of mere skill, but it involves an element of chance and the respondents cannot be prevented from discharging their statutory duties. He relied on the decisions reported in Cherupu Venkata Varaha Narasimham v. State of A.P. (AIR 1968 A.P. 344), Jagat Singh Kishor Singh Darbar v. State of Gujarat (1979) 4 SCC 307), The State of AP v. K. Satyanarayana (AIR 1968 SC 825(1), and Abraham v. State of Kerala (2000) 3 KLT 163 = ILR (Ker) 2000 (3) 763).

7. No doubt, this Court in W.P.No.30597 of 2014 and batch dated 29.10.2015, after considering the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader in identical circumstances, held that the game of ‘Rummy’ with 13 cards is not a game of mere chance and it is preponderantly a game of skill. The decision of the Madras High Court in Mahalakshmi Cultural Association v. The Director, Inspector General of Police (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15371/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22.03.2012 in WA No. 2287/2011 passed by the High Court of Madras), relied on by the learned Government Pleader, was held to be not available in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.08.2015 in an appeal preferred against the said order by the State and withdrawal o