2014 (10) TMI 1067 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking direction to respondents not to insist upon the obtaining of licence under the relevant Licensing Order/s of the State Government or under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - petitioner contended that only lawful activities are being carried on in the premises of the petitioner and that no game(s) of chance or event(s) of public amusement are being conducted in the petitioner s premises - HELD THAT - In RAMA RECREATION ASSOCIATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 1993 (10) TMI 374 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , after referring to the definition of place of public amusement and place of pubic entertainment under Ss.2(14) 2(15) of the Act, it was held that a Club is a place in which only its members are permitted to engage in any diversion or recreational activities etc. and such an association need not take out a licence under the Licensing Order. There is no denial of the fact that there is mushroom growth of the societies like that of the petitioner and that the modus operandi is not what it appears to be on paper and bye-laws / memorandum of association etc. Regulatory mechanism is required, to check the illegal activities, if any, in the club(s) / association(s), registered as a society, under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. When the club/association allows its member(s) to play games with stakes or make any profit or gain out of such games, police has the authority to invoke the provisions of the Act. In DURGAPARAMESHWARI RECREATION ASSOCIATION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2013 (3) TMI 872 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , it was held that the respondents should not interfere with lawful activities of the petitioner club. However, it was made clear that the respondents are permitted to take action in accordance with law, in case, the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activity. Thus, all the legal points raised by the learned advocates stand covered by the Orders / Judgments referred to hereinabove and hence, a further examination of the contentions is unnecessary. The petitioner shall install within a period of six weeks, 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. The CC TV footage of at least prior 15 days period shall be made available by the petitioner to the police, as and when called upon to do so - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner, a registered Society, needs to obtain a license under relevant state government orders or the Karnataka Police Act for its activities.
2. Whether the police authorities can interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner's club premises.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner argued that its club activities are restricted to members only and are lawful, not requiring any license under the Licensing Orders or the Karnataka Police Act. The police were accused of unnecessary interference through raids and surveillance. Reference was made to previous judgments stating that clubs admitting only members for lawful activities do not need licenses, but police can inspect for illegal activities.

2. The respondents contended that inspection was necessary to prevent unlawful activities like gambling or consumption of liquor in the club premises. Previous judgments highlighted the need for a regulatory mechanism to prevent misuse of club premises and ensure activities remain within legal boundaries. Police were directed not to harass genuine clubs but to take action if unlawful activities were found.

3. The court referred to past judgments, emphasizing that clubs restricted to members for lawful activities do not require licenses but can be inspected for illegal activities. The court ordered the petitioner to install CCTV cameras, issue identity cards to members, and prohibit non-members from using club premises for games. It also directed the petitioner to prevent games of chance and unlawful activities, allowing police periodic visits for monitoring.

4. The judgment clarified that while police should not interfere with lawful recreational activities, they could take action if any member engaged in unlawful or immoral activities. The court's decision was based on existing legal principles and previous judgments, ensuring a balance between club autonomy and law enforcement.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the issues of licensing requirements for the petitioner's club and the extent of police interference in club activities. It emphasized the need for clubs to operate within legal boundaries, allowing police oversight to prevent unlawful activities while respecting the rights of genuine clubs. The detailed directives provided a framework for maintaining lawful operations and enabling police monitoring without undue harassment.