MLAS Colony Residents Welfare & Cultural Association vs The State of Telangana

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the action of the respondents in interfering/obstructing the petitioners clu W.P.No.4103 of 2017 was filed by the MLAS Colony Residents Welfare and Cultural Association, Hyderabad, whereas, W.P.N The common case of the petitioners is that they were registered under the Societies Registration Act and have been cond Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.4103 and 8478 of 2017 denying the averme In view of the denial of the interference and the right of the respondents to inspect the premises in order to curb the Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submitted that the game of Rummy is not a game of mere skill, No doubt, this Court in W.P.No.30597 of 2014 and batch dated 29.10.2015, after considering the cases cited on behalf of 1. Directing the respondent police authorities not to interfere with the card game of rummy (13 card game) whatever be

Directing the petitioners to install video cameras and record the entire recreational activities in the clubs and pr

Declaring that the police are entitled to enter into the premises of the petitioners club for taking action as per

Declaring that this order would not come in the way of the respondents from taking action as per law.

Declaring that any deviation of the above guidelines by the petitioners clubs will be construed as violation of the

The order of this Court maintained the balance between the responsibilities of the petitioners and duties of the respon Section 2 of the Act defines a common gaming house including any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in wh It is difficult for anyone to say what is happening inside the premises. When the fish is in water it is commonly said When this view of the Court was expressed, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that, in view of the earlier In Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh9, the Honble Supreme Court observed as follows: " 42. In this regard reference to the decision in Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao ((2002) 4 SCC 638) would be fruitfu 17 One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must co "

(emphasis in original)

In Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in a case where th

In view of the above clear enunciation of law with regard to the issuance of Writs of Mandamus, this court cannot issue the These Writ Petitions are, thus, not maintainable and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.