APHC010043642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3180/2026 Between:

1. T HE SATTENAPALLI CLUB,, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT M.SRINIVASRAO S/O.KOTI RAMULU, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO 8-3-38, SBI ROAD, SATTENAPALLI TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT-522403.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522237.

2. T HE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503

3. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT-522601.

4. T HE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT-522403.

5. T HE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT-522403.

6. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT-522403.

7. M EDARAMETLA HANUMANTHARAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. OCC DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT-522403

8. N ARAHARI NAGAMALLESWARAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC INSPECTOR OF POLICE SATTENAPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT-522403 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. BAGGI VENKATA PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the day-to-day activities of the petitioner club and orally directing the petitioner society not to allow its members to play 13-card rummy on its premises as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner club, namely Sattenapalli Club, including the playing of 13-Card Rummy in its premises…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Sri Baggi Venkata Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that pursuant to the amendment Section 2(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 2020 (Act 43 of 2020), the club is permitted to organize the playing 13-card rummy game without stakes.

4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, brings to the notice of this Court the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.7 of 2025 in W.P.No.11394 of 2024, wherein the said I.A. was allowed, setting aside the earlier order dated 15.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.11394 of 2024, by which permission had been granted to the petitioner therein to conduct card rooms for playing the 13-card rummy game without stakes.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, conducting card rooms for playing the 13-card rummy game without stakes is not an offence punishable under law. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home requests this Court to pass an order enabling the police to have some regulation over the activities of the club.

6. A fortiori, this Court in Officers Recreation Club v. State of A.P, 1W.P.No.29586 of 2025 dated 24.03.2026 held that the game of rummy, including the 13-card variant, is predominantly a game of skill and not one of chance and, therefore, its conduct without stakes does not constitute an offence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974, as amended by Act 43 of 2020, consequently, the interference of the police authorities with the lawful and bona fide recreational activities of clubs conducting such games is wholly unsustainable in law. The Court further declared that while clubs are entitled to conduct card