Karnataka High Court

Sarvodaya Social Club vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998
                                                           WP No. 106085 of 2024




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                           DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 106085 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)


                      BETWEEN:

                      SARVODAYA SOCIAL CLUB,
                      MAIN ROAD, GAJENDRAGADA,
                      TA: GAJENDRAGADA, DISTRICT: GADAG,
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
                      BASAVARAJ S/O. ADIVEPPA HUGAR,
                      AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE AND
                      PRESIDENT OF SARVODAYA SOCIAL CLUB,
                      R/O. GAJENDRAGADA, TQ: GAJENDRAGADA,
                      DISTRICT: GADAG-582101.
                                                                       ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE.)


                      AND:
MANJANNA
E                     1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
                           BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH             VISHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

                      2.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                           GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582101.

                      3.   THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                           GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582101.

                      4.   THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                           RON POLICE STATION, TQ: GAJENDRAGADA,
                           DISTRICT: GADAG-582101.

                      5.   THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
                           GAJENDRAGADA POLICE STATION,
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998
                                         WP No. 106085 of 2024




    TQ: GAJENDRAGADA,
    DISTRICT: GADAG-582101.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP.)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE     OF MANDAMUS      OR   ANY   OTHER   APPROPRIATE
WRIT/ORDERS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES NOT
TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN LICENSE FOR
PLAYING SKILL GAMES LIKE CHESS, DART GAME, RUMMY AND
CARROM, VIDEO GAMES, ELECTRONIC AMUSEMENT GAMES, DICE
GAMES, EITHER UNDER KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1960 OR UNDER
THE LICENSING AND CONTROLLING OF PLACE OF PUBLIC
AMUSEMENT ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
AND ETC.,.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for

respondents No.1 to 5.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP representing the respondents.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

writ of mandamus by way of directions to the respondents

not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain license for

playing skill games indoor games like Chess, Carrom,

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998

Rummy, Table Tennis, Lawn tennis, Billiards, Badminton

and outdoor games such as Tennis, Tenniqutte, Athletics,

Cricket etc., and further direction to respondents not to

interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner club.

4. Petitioner is a social club under the name of

Sarvodaya Social Club, registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act, 1960 vide registration

No.DR/GDG/SOR-158/2012-13 dated 14.08.2012.

Petitioner is running several sports activities to adults,

children and other members of the Club to train the

members exclusively for sports. It is the grievance of the

petitioner that respondent No.5 started interfering with the

affairs of the petitioner and orally asking the petitioner to

stop the activities. Whereas, respondents have given

ultimatum and warning to close down the Club otherwise

they would lock the premises for not obtaining license.

Therefore, petitioner is before this Court due to the high

handedness and arbitrary manner of respondent No.5 in

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998

trying to coerce the petitioner not to run the sports

activities in its Club.

5. Learned HCGP for respondents contends that no

such coercion or force has been made to the petitioner

Club to obtain license and sign any documents nor

interfere with the activities of the petitioner Club. He

further contends that the respondents being the

jurisdictional Police authorities are visiting to monitor

whether any illegal or unlawful activities are being

conducted in the petitioner Club. Apart from that there is

no intention of the respondents either in coercing the

petitioner from obtaining the license to those activities,

which are not required to be obtained by law, or in any

other manner whatsoever. Hence, he contends that this

petition is premature as no such order has been issued or

given to the petitioner to obtain license or to shut down

the premises run by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Blue Line Video

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998

Games Associates, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka

and others reported in (2013) 2 KLJ 177.

7. Admittedly, petitioner Club is registered under

the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Having

registered under the Societies Registration Act in

accordance with law has been running certain activities in

imparting sports activities to its members, entry is

restricted to the members of the Club. The members of

the Club are involved in playing games as stated above.

When the petitioner is not involved in conducting or

running any unlawful, illegal activities in the Club,

respondents No.2 to 5 cannot insist upon obtaining license

or permission for those games and sports activities for

which no license is required under law. Of course, it is

necessary for the petitioner to obtain license to run any of

the activities/sports for which any license is prescribed

under the law.

8. Learned counsel has also relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Kings Social Club

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998

Handigund Vs. State of Karnataka, in

W.P.NO.105936/2022 dated 16.12.2022, wherein this

Court in similarly situated circumstances has issued

certain guidelines to the writ petitioner therein.

Admittedly, on query to the petitioner's counsel, there is

no installation of CCTV camera in the Club premises and

she also submits that the entry is restricted only to the

members of the Club by way of issue of identity cards and

persons who are not members are not permitted to enter.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the

respondents are insisting to obtain necessary license to

run the activities belonging to the petitioner or would have

to close down the Club is to be seen from the angle of

whether the petitioner is running illegal and unlawful

activities and if no such activities are being run by the

petitioner, petitioner is entitled to run the activities in the

Club without any interference for sports activities as per

law.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998

9. The guidelines issued in paragraph No.2 of the

above said order are as under:

"(i) The petitioner shall install CC TV cameras at all the places of access to its members and also at all the places, wherein game(s) is/are played by the members within a period of six weeks. The CC TV footage of atleast prior 15 days' period shall be made available by the petitioner to the jurisdiction police, as and when called upon to do so.

(ii) The petitioner shall issue identity card(s) to all its member(s), which shall be produced by the member(s), when called upon by the concerned police, during the raid(s), surveillance, etc.

(iii) The petitioner shall not allow any non-member(s) or the guest(s) of the member(s) to make use of its premises for the purpose of playing any kind of games or recreational activities.

(iv) The petitioner shall not permit any activity by any of its member(s), by indulging in acts of amusement, falling within the definition of Ss.2(14) & 2(15) of the Act and shall not permit any game(s) of chance as per explanation (II) of Sub-

section (7) of Section 2 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The member(s) shall not be allowed to play any kind of game(s) with stakes or make any profit or gain out of the game(s) played.

(v) The petitioner shall put proper mechanism in place and shall ensure that no game(s) is played in any unlawful manner by the member(s). If the jurisdiction police find that the game(s) played is/are contrary to any law and in violation of the settled practice, it is open to them to take action against the petitioner and the offenders, in accordance with law.

(vi) The jurisdictional police shall have liberty to visit premises periodically and/or on receipt of any information about any unlawful activity being carried on in the petitioner's premises.

(vii) The respondents are directed not to interfere with the lawful recreational activities carried on by the members of the petitioner's-Club/Association.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14998

(viii) It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the jurisdictional police invoking the provisions of the Act and taking action in accordance with law, if the member(s) of the petitioner is/are found to have indulged in any unlawful or immoral activities."

No order as to costs."

10. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of

this writ petition with the above guidelines.

11. It is needless to mention that respondent Nos.2

to 5 shall not unnecessarily interfere in the affairs of the

petitioner Club unless they find unlawful activities being

carried out.

12. It is made clear that this order would not

restrict or restrain respondents No.2 to 5 from monitoring

any of the activities being run in the petitioner Club, in

accordance with law.

13. The petition stands allowed accordingly.