P.C.:- Heard. Rule. By consent, rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Ingawale, AGP waives service for respondents.

2. Since common question of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. In all these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the notices issued to the petitioners' club requiring them to close down their Card Clubs unless and until they obtain licence from the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in terms of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as the said Act) and the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performances, Discotheque, Games, Poll Game, Parlours, Amusements Parlours providing Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games, Cyber Cafes with Net Connectivity, Bowling Alleys, Cards Rooms, Social Clubs, Sports Clubs, Meals and Tamasha Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the said Rules").

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they provide for various recreational amusement, sports facilities including that for playing cards in the premises of the petitioners. However, such facilities are provided only to the members of the petitioners. The entry to said premises of the petitioners is restricted for the use of the members of the respective petitioners. It is also the case that the members can bring their guests to the said premises, however, such persons, except being the guests of the members, do not have any right of access. The members have to introduce such persons as their guests. It is their further case that the public have no access to the premises as the entry is restricted to the members of the respective petitioners Club. It is their further case that in spite of this factual position being known to the respondents, the notices were served upon the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to suspend the card games and to close down their card clubs, unless necessary licence is obtained under the said Act and the said Rules for such games. The petitioners therefore were compelled to obtain such licences but the same were obtained under protest. However, as according to the petitioners, the said Rules which seek to empowered the respondents to insists for licence for such card clubs houses and games are in excess of powers available to the respondents under the said Act itself, and hence they have approached to this Court with the present petition challenging the Rules to the extent the same relate to the card clubs in the petitioners' premises which according to the petitioner do not fall within the meaning of the expression "the public place" under the said Act. The place made available for playing cards in the petitioners' premises is not the place of public amusement within the meaning of said expression under the said Act, and therefore, the said rules cannot apply to the card Clubs of the petitioners. The said rules which seek to relate to the places in the private buildings as well as in the premises belonging to the Cooperative Housing Societies and used only for the members of the club are in excess of the rule making power under the provisions of law comprised under section 33 (w) of the said Act. Taking into consideration the definition of the expressions "place of public amusements" and "public place", and the rule making power under section 33 (w) and (y) and further section 33(b) of the said Act, the rules framed by the respondents in relation to the card clubs cannot relate to the private places and those of the petitioners where the entry is restricted to the members and not open and accessible to the public.

5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the definition of the expressions "place of public amusement" as well as "public place" being of inclusive nature and the rules which have been framed being not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and having framed in exercise of powers unde