Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs After The Writ Petition Were Heard on 31 January, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
I.A. No. 1 of 2022
IN
WRIT PETITON NO. 19659 of 2020
AND
I.A. No. 1 of 2022
IN
WRIT PETITON NO. 19571 of 2020
AND
I.A. No. 1 of 2022
IN
WRIT PETITON NO. 19732 of 2020
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
1. After the Writ Petition were heard, three Interlocutory
Applications [I.A. No. 1 of 2022] came to be filed in Writ Petition
Nos. 19659 of 2020, 19571 of 2020 and 19732 of 2022, by the
Respondent No.2 seeking to permit the State to bring on record
the Ordinance No. 4 of 2022, dated 1st October 2022, and the
"Report of the Committee constituted by Tamil Nadu
Government to recommend the desirability of a legislation to ban
Online Card Games including Rummy [by Justice K. Chandru
(Chairperson)" by way of filing this Permission Petition].
2. The Learned Advocate General appearing for the State would
submit that the State of Tamil Nadu has issued an Ordinance
No. 4 of 2022, dated 1st October 2022, to prohibit Online gaming
and to regulate Online games in the State of Tamil Nadu. He
would further submit that the said Ordinance in Schedule-II has
designated online rummy as a "game of chance" and the said
Ordinance No. 4 of 2022 was issued on the basis of
recommendations furnished by the Committee.
3. He urged the Court to allow the permission petition and to allow
the Ordinance and Committee Report submitted by Justice
K.Chandru to be placed on record in order to re-affirm the
submissions made by the State in the batch of Writ Petitions.
4. He further submits that placing of this new material before this
Court is very much necessary not only to substantiate the
submissions made by the State but also to establish that Online
Rummy is a "game of chance". Hence, prayed this Court to allow
the present Interlocutory Applications.
5. However, the interlocutory applications were sternly objected to
by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for
Writ Petitioners, stating that the Justice K. Chandru Report and
the Ordinance have no relevance to present case, and the same
is devoid of any merits. Furthermore, the report pertains to an
Ordinance promulgated by State of Tamil Nadu under the
Specific directions of the Tamil Nadu State Government.
6. He further submits that the State of Tamil Nadu initially banned
all the "games of skill" including online rummy vide Tamil Nadu
Gaming and Police law (Amendment) Act, 2021, however, the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide a Common
Judgment, dated August 03, 2021, in "Junglee Games India
Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu1", declared the
amendments as ultra vires the Constitution of India in its
entirety and the same was struck down.
7. It is further pleaded that, in the said Writ Petitions, the
Petitioners challenged the amendments made in the year 2020 to
The Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974, as such, in light of the
facts circumscribing to the State of Andhra Pradesh, he urged
the Court to consider the Writ Petitions as is applicable to the
State of Andhra Pradesh.
8. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that considering the
said report and ordinance at this juncture, will cause serious
prejudice to the Petitioners. However, even if Report filed by
Respondents is taken on record, the contents of the same does
not stand proved and are not binding on this Hon'ble Court. He
placed reliance on Constitution bench judgment of Hon'ble
2021 SCC Online Mad 2762
Supreme Court in "Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India2",
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussing about the relevance
of a Judicial Report held as under:
"448. The apprehension of the respondents that their case
shall be prejudiced if this Court accepts the Parliamentary
Committee report in evidence, in our opinion is misplaced.
By acceptance of a Parliamentary Committee report in
evidence does not mean that facts stated in the Report
stand proved. When issues, facts come before a court of
law for adjudication, the court is to decide the issues on
the basis of evidence and materials brought before it and
in which adjudication Parliamentary Committee report may
only be one of the materials, what weight has to be given
to one or other evidence is the adjudicatory function of the
court which may differ from case to case. The
Parliamentary Committee reports cannot be treated as
conclusive or binding of what has been concluded in the
Report. When adjudication of any claim fastening any civil
or criminal liability on an individual is up in a court of law,
it is open for a party to rely on all evidence and materials
which is in its power and court has to decide the issues on
consideration of the entire material brought before it. When
the Parliamentary Committee report is not adjudication of
any civil or criminal liability of the private respondents,
their fear that acceptance of report shall prejudice their
case is unfounded. We are, thus, of the opinion that by
accepting Parliamentary Committee report on the record in
this case and considering the Report by this Court, the
respondents' right to dispel conclusions and findings in the
Report is not taken away and they are free to prove their
case in accordance with law."
AIR 2018 SC 2493:: (2018) 7 SCC 1
9. He also brought to notice of this Court that the Committee
headed by Justice K. Chandru did not comprise of any gaming
expert or a representative from the industry. He also pointed out
that even though Justice K. Chandru Report mentions that the
Committee comprised of members from "different areas of work",
the only technical member in the committee appears to be
Dr.Shankar Raman MJ, who is the CEO of IITM Pravartak
Technologies Foundation and whose credentials are not available
on the website.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Writ Petitioner further
argued that it is very much clear from the terms of reference of
the Committee that the whole intent was to ban online games
specifically online rummy, despite it being a legally permissible
business activity, protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of
Constitution of India. This intent can be drawn from bare
perusal of the Report where Report has incorrectly equated skill-
based games with "gambling and betting", when played online.
11. Heard the both sides and perused the record.
12. It is not in dispute that the Government of Tamil Nadu
constituted a Committee to recommend to the Government for
brining a legislation to ban online card games including rummy.
Pursuant thereto, a five Member Committee was formed headed
by Hon'ble Justice K. Chandru, as its Chairperson. Accordingly,
the Committee submitted a Report to the Government of Tamil
Nadu, making certain recommendation. Upon which, the State of
Tamil Nadu, has issued an Ordinance No. 4 of 2022, dated 3 rd
October, 2022, prohibiting online gambling and to regulate
online games in the State of Tamil Nadu.
13. It is to be noted that, the report of Justice K. Chandru and its
recommendations were exclusively made basing on the facts and
circumstances of the State of Tamil Nadu, and reliance of the
said report by this Court is discretionary in nature. However, we
are of the opinion that no importance can be given to the said
report, as it to be made purely on the situation apt to the domain
of the State of Tamil Nadu.
14. We are inclined towards the objections raised by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitions that the Five
Member Committee, which was constituted did not have any
gaming expert or a representative of the industry. Hence, we are
of the view that, placing reliance on that report, where there is
no representation from the online gaming industry, would cause
gross injustice to the Petitioners. There is no proof that an
opportunity was afforded to the Writ Petitioners before Justice
K.Chandru Report, to raise objection and, as such, placing
reliance on the said report and considering it, would definitely
cause prejudice to the Writ Petitioner herein. Having regard to
the above, we see no ground to allow the Interlocutory
Applications.
15. Accordingly, the interlocutory Applications are dismissed. No
order as to costs.
______________________________
JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
___________________________________
DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Dt.31.01.2023
SM / MS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.19659 of 2020
AND
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.19571 of 2020
AND
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.19732 of 2020
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
Date: 31.01.2023
MS
