IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26739 of 2008 Between: MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI Electronics Computerised Children’s Video Games, Rep by its Proprietor Md. Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui, aged about: 34 years, Occ: Running Video Games Shop, D.No. 9-2-1/A, Manovikas Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hashmathpet, R.R.District - A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, R.R. District - A.P. 2 The Station House Officer, P.S. Alwal, R.R. District - A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein not to interfere in the petitioner's Electronics Computerised Children’s Video games shop running without license. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MACHERLA MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26739 OF 2008 ORDER: Learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 28.08.2003 rendered in W.P.No.16596 of 2003. In view of the above, following the aforesaid order, this writ petition is also disposed of with the following observations and directions: 1) Petitioner who is running the games center for playing video games is not required to take out any license under the A.P. Gambling Act; 2) It is not suggested that the license is required under the provisions of any other Act; 3) The respondent-police officers have no power to interfere with the running of centers for playing video games on the electronic equipment on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the license; and 4) If it is felt that the petitioner has contravened any of the provisions of the A.P. Gambling Act, it is open for the authorities to take action to prosecute the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________​__________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 8th December, 2008. IBL