(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the lawful functions of the petitioners club without any complaint or due process of law.)

ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction forbearing the respondents from interfering with the lawful functions of the petitioners club without any complaint or due process of law.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-club viz., Durai Manamagil Mandram is functioning in Karaiyampatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, from December 2011 and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The club was formed for serving the village people. It is conducting sports activities and functioning without any complaint. But, however, the Police are interfering with the day-to-day activities of the club. On 25.07.2012 a representation was sent by the petitioner to the respondent. A reference was made to the judgment of this Court reported 2009(4) CTC 26 (Anandham Manamagil Mandran Vs. The Superintendent of Police).

3. The affidavit does not disclose whether the respondents police are interfering with the petitioners members playing chess or carom board. The main motive of the petitioner is to play cards. The petitioner has not given details of the nature of interference by the respondents police. If the petitioners club conducts activities which are opposed to any criminal law, it is always open to the respondents police to take an action and book appropriate cases. No relief can be given on the basis of the mere apprehension and unsubstantiated allegations.

4. The law relating to the issue is covered by a division bench judgment of this court in The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others Vs. Mahalakshmi Cultural Association reported in 2012 (2) LW 371. The division bench while holding that 13 cards rummy game is a game of skill and if it is played without stakes, the Chennai City Police Act will not apply to them and in case, if it is played with stakes, certainly, the provisions of the Act are applicable. If it is found that the game is played with stake or with any profit or any gain is made out, the police authority can invoke the provisions of the Act. In fact, in that judgment, the division bench even allowed the criminal cases to be proceeded with in accordance with law. Subsequent to the division bench judgment, it was widely reported in the press. It was also noted by this court in the earlier cases that instead of playing the game with cash or coins, similar clubs have started playing the rummy game with colour token which can be subsequently encashed at the behest of the club.

5. The question of issuing writ in the nature of mandamus came to be considered by the Supreme Court in more than one judgment. It is necessary to refer to one such judgment. In Director of Settlements, A.P. and others Vs.M.R.Apparao and another reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638 [LQ/SC/2002/402] ,the Supreme Court set out the scope and the manner of exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and in paragraph 17, it was observed as follows:-

"17. Coming to the third question, which is more important from the point of consideration of the High Courts power for issuance of mandamus, it appears that the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore essentially, a power upon the High Court for issuance of high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental or ordinary legal rights, which may come within the expression for any other purpose. The powers of the High Courts under Article 226 though are discretionary and no limits can be placed upon their discretion, they must be exercised along the recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations. The expression for any other purpose in Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts more extensive but yet the Courts must exercise the same with certain restraints and within some parameters. One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus. Mandamus means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition (Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P.). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.

6. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.