BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.03.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN WP(MD). No.3864 of 2022 Maya Recreation Club, Represented by its Secretary, Dhandapani. ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS forbearing the 2nd Respondent and their subordinates from in any manner interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner's club namely Maya Recreation Club to play a rummy and other indoor games, other games in the premises of the petitioner`s club situated in Survey No.1294/4, Dindigul Road, Vedasandur, Dindigul District without following the due process of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susi Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 2nd Respondent and their subordinates from in any manner interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner's club namely Maya Recreation Club to play a rummy and other indoor games, other games in the premises of the petitioner`s club situated in Survey No.1294/4, Dindigul Road, Vedasandur, Dindigul District without following the due process of law.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the club was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioner, who is the Secretary, is running the Club to promote various facilities to their members and it is not involving in any illegal activity. According to the petitioner, the respondent Police are interfering and disturbing the lawful activities of the Club, without following any provisions of law and preventing them from doing their activities peacefully. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Club was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and the Club is being run for the benefit of its' members. The petitioner's Club was entitled to conduct lawful activities in its premises and also could conduct entertainment programmes. The respondent Police have no power to deny the petitioner's Club to conduct lawful activities. 5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's club was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. They are conducting various programmes to entertain their members. Based on some reliable information, the respondent Police made a search in the Club. Apart from that, the petitioner has not obtained licence as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Places of Public Resort Act, 1888. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.5560 of 2018, etc., batch cases-[Mass Recreation Club- Shengottah represented by its Secretary Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others], dated 13.07.2018, wherein, this Court held that the petitioner should necessarily get license from the Authority concerned under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Places of Public Resort Act, 1888. The above order has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2018, dated
31.07.2018. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
“3.We have recorded the reason for dismissal of the Writ Petition. We find absolutely no reason to differ. Informing that appellant has to obtaining necessary permission under Tamil Nadu Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 and on doing so, it would be open for the appellant Club to indulge in Rummy Card games and other recreation activities, other than those that what offend the Tamil Nadu Gambling Act, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed.”
6. That apart, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side)
appearing for the respondents has relied upon Section 34 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. Section 34 of the above said Act reads as follows:-
“34.Places of public resort to be licensed-(1)No enclosed place or building having an area of five hundred square feet or upwards shall be used for public entertainment or resort without a licence from the Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-
Section shall apply to any Church, Temple, Mosque, or other place of worship.
(2)The Commissioner may, at the time of grant of a licence under Sub-Section (1) or at any time during the currency of any such licence, require any person, other than a local authority, applying for such licence or the holder of such licence, as the case may be, to deposit with the Commissioner in cash or in Government promissory notes for such sum, as may be prescribed as sec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.