THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.24533, 25043, 25053, 25395 and 25404 OF 2011 Date:09.09.2011 Between: M/s.G.V.R. Family Club (a unit of Pasupula Resorts Private Limited, 2-54, Plot Nos.13, 13A, 13B, Sri Malani Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, represented by its Managing Director M.Laxman Babu, S/o.Akka Rao, Aged about 30 years, R/o.New Bowenpally, Secunderabad .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.24533, 25043, 25053, 25395 and 25404 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The relief sought for, in this batch of writ petitions, is to declare the action of the respondents in closing down the petitioners’ clubs, on the ground that it is a social evil and their activities are casting a slur on the image of the police and the Government, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to permit the petitioners to organize and conduct the game of “Rummy” (a 13 cards game) with stake and syndicate with money in the club premises of its members and guests. It would suffice, for the disposal of this batch of writ petitions, if the facts in W.P.No.24533 of 2011 are noted. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, claims to be providing recreational facilities to its members such as Library, Reading Room, Gymnasium, Swimming Pool, Tennis and other games. It is their case that, on 24.08.2011, the respondents raided the club premises, and had instructed the petitioner to close down the card room; and, two days thereafter, a press note was issued that a major crack down in the gambling centres in the entire State was contemplated as they were not recreation centres. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the scope of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (the Act), or provisions of similar enactments, were considered in State of A.P. v. K. Satyanarayana[1]; Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamilnadu[2]; Executive club v. State of A.P[3]; D. Krishna Kumar v. State of A.P.[4], and a game of “Rummy” was held to be a game of skill unlike the three card games which may be a game of chance; and, whatever be the stakes, no action can be taken against clubs which facilitate its members and guests in playing “Rummy” (a 13 card game). A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.6. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, would submit that, while playing “Rummy” in these clubs may per se not be illegal, several clubs are facilitating games of chance, such as such three cards games, also to be played thereat; in the guise of providing facilities for playing “Rummy” several illegal activities are being carried on in several of these clubs; in order to curb such illegal activities, the respondents had sought to enter the premises of such clubs to ascertain whether any game of chance, other than “Rummy”, was being played thereat; and whether any illegal activities were being carried on therein. Section 2(1)(i)(f) of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974, (A.P. Act 27 of 1974), defines a “common gaming house” to mean any house, room, or enclosure etc., in which gaming on any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting, in which the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes in money or otherwise, is made to depend on chance takes place. Explanation (a) to Section 2(i)(ii) defines “gaming” to mean playing a game for winning of prizes in money or otherwise, and includes playing a game of mutka or satta and lucky board and wagering or betting. Explanation (i) thereto provides that wagering or betting shall be deemed to comprise the collection or soliciting of bets, the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes in money or otherwise in receipt of any wager or bet. Section 2(4) defines “instruments of gaming” to include cards, dice etc. Under Section 3(1), any person who opens, keeps or uses or permits to be used any “common gaming house” shall be punished. Explanation thereto defines “person” to include the owner or the occupier of the place used as a “common gaming house”. Under Section 4 whoever is found gaming, or is present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 reads as under: Power to grant warrant to enter a common gaming house etc:- (1) If any salaried judicial or executive Magistrate, or any police officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police within the area under jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police Hyderabad and a Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere has reason to believe that any place is used as a common gaming house, he may by his warrant give authority to any police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector,- (i) to enter with such assistance as may be found necessary, at any time and by force, if necessary any such place; (ii) to arrest all persons found therein; (iii) to search all such persons and all parts of such place; and (iv) to seize- (a) all moneys found with such person; (b) all investments of gaming; and (c) all moneys, all securities for money and article of value reasonably suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming which are found in such place. Under Section 6 where any instruments of gaming are found in any place, entered or searched under the provisions of Section 5, on or about the person found therein, it shall be presumed that such place is used as a common gaming house, and that the persons found therein were present there for the purpose of gaming although no gaming was actually seen by the police officer or any of his assistants. Section 15 stipulates that nothing in the Act shall apply to games of skill only wherever played. While a Sub Inspector, on a warrant issued to him under Section 5 of the Act, can enter a club if he has reason to believe that it is being used as a “common gaming house”, arrest persons who are found playing games of chance thereat, search all such persons, seize money found with such persons, investments of gaming etc and initiate penal proceeding under Section 3 and 4 of the Act, the provisions of the Act do not empower the authorities either to close down a “gaming house” or prevent games of skill from being played therein. The game of “Rummy” is not a game entirely of chance like a 'three-card' games such as 'flush', 'brag' etc. which is a game of pure chance. “Rummy”, on the other hand, requires certain amount of skill. The game of “Rummy” is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill. The chance in Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at a game of bridge. Merely because there is an element of chance, it cannot be said that Rummy is a game of chance, and there is no skill involved in it. (K. Satyanarayana1). Competitions where success depends on a substantial degree of skill are not "gambling"; and, despite there being an element of chance if a game is preponderantly a game of skill it would nevertheless be a game of "mere skill". The expression "mere skill" would mean substantial degree or preponderance of skill. (Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan2). The game of Rummy may include an element of chance but would, nevertheless, be a game of 'mere skill' within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. The applicability of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, is excluded in so far as it relates to the game of “Rummy”. As the provisions of the Act are not applicable, the stakes involved in playing such a game would be of no consequence. (Executive Club3). Even if the petitioner clubs were making profits by allowing persons to use the premises for playing the game of rummy with 13 cards/syndicate, they cannot be said to be running a “common gaming house” as defined in Section 3 of the Act because Section 3, in view of Section 15 of the Act, does not apply to a place where “Rummy” is being played. (D. Krishna Kumar4). A card room cannot be said to be a “gaming house” as long as the game of thirteen cards (Rummy) is played by the members or the guests or both, as the case may be. The cards used for playing the game of thirteen cards (Rummy) cannot be said to be “instruments of gaming”. Neither persons found playing the thirteen cards (Rummy) game in the club premises nor person connected with the affairs of the management of the petitioner- clubs can be punished under Sections 4 and 3 of the said Act respectively. (Executive club3). Conducting a card room, where members and guests play the game of rummy (13 card game) with stakes/syndicate, would not attract the provisions of the Act. (D. Krishna Kumar4). In the light of the provisions of the Act, and the law laid down in the judgments aforementioned, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with any card game of Rummy (a 13 Cards game), whatever be the stakes, being played in these clubs. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from entering the clubs concerned and from taking action in terms of Section 5 of the Act and, thereafter, to initiate penal proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 for violations of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner clubs shall cause no hindrance to the respondents in exercising their statutory powers under Section 5 or any other provisions of the Act. With the above observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09.09.2011 KH [1] AIR 1968 SC 825 [2] AIR 1996 SC 1153 [3] 1998 (5) ALD 126 [4] 2002 (5) ALT 806