AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandran, J.—The Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, to forbear the third Respondent herein from
interfering with the lawful day-to-day activities of the Petitioner club, without following the due process of law.
In similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Anandham Manamagil Mandram v. The Superintendent of Police, reported in 2009(4) CTC
264, had issued certain directions. In view of the earlier order passed by this Court, in the above decision, the following directions are issued in the
present writ petition.
(i) The Petitioner, the office bearers and the members of the Petitioner Club are entitled to carry on lawful activities within the premises of the club
and there should not be any interference from the police authorities, so long as their activities are not in violation of the provisions of the Public
Gambling Act, 1867/Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930; and the other relevant provisions of law.
(ii) In the normal circumstances, there should be no interference in the lawful functioning of the Petitioner Club, by the Police. It is not permissible
for the police to enter the Club premises as a routine measure, so long as the Club is functioning, within the frame work of law;
(iii) If the police authorities have specific information or a reasonable doubt that the activities, carried on by the Club, its office bearers or its
members and the others associated with it are not in accordance with law or that they are indulging in unlawful activities, in violation of the
provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867/Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 or any other relevant enactment, it would be open to them, after
recording reasons in the General Diary maintained in the Police Station, to proceed to enter the Club premises, conduct investigation, interrogate
those who are involving themselves in such activities and to take appropriate action, on merits and as per law;
(iv) While exercising the powers conferred on the Police authorities, they should follow the mandatory provisions as contained in Section 5 of the
Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 / Public Gambling Act, 1867;
(v) It is always open to the Club or its members and the others associated with the club to challenge the action taken by the Police, if it was not in
accordance with law;
(vi) In case the Police authorities are of the opinion that a situation has arisen warranting the suspension of the operation of the Club, in exercise of
the powers conferred upon them, they have to issue an order in writing. When there is no authority or power granted to the Police authorities to
issue an order of suspension, orally, they are not entitled to pass such oral orders; and
(vii) Before passing orders for the purpose of closure of the Club, in exercise of the powers conferred on the authorities concerned, they should
follow the principles of natural justice. The Club should be given an opportunity to submit its objections, if any, and, if so desired, a further
opportunity of personal hearing should also be given.
Following the earlier order passed by this Court, in Anandham Manamagil Mandram''s case, cited supra, the Writ Petition stands disposed of
with similar directions, as stated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.