IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9259 of 2009 Between: Dibbalapalem Sri Maha Lakshmi Cultural Association Rep. by its President, Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o.Venkatadri, Dibbalapalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, R/o. Janani Residency, Pandu Rangapuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 2 Dy. Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 3 Assistant Commissioner of Police Yendada,Visakhapatnam. 4 The Station House Officer Anandapuram P.S. Visakhapatnam. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR C.KODANDARAM Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents and in particular that of respondent No.4 in causing obstruction and unwarrant interference with the recreational activities of the petitioner Society and its members in playing rummy (13 cards game) as illegal and arbitrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974. The petitioner, which claims to consist of people occupying respectable positions in the society as its members, expressed the grievance that respondent No.4 has been unduly interfering with its members playing rummy game. In response to the notice, S.Tata Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatmam, respondent No.4, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he specifically denied his visiting the petitioner’s premises along with his staff frequently and literally obstructing its members from playing rummy game. It is useful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit hereunder- “It is respectfully submitted that I have taken charge as Sub-Inspector of Police, Anandapuram P.S on 17.5.2009. After taking charge, myself or my subordinates have never visited the petitioner association at any time and no information is received that public are playing game of change in the petitioner association. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the members of the Society who play bridge and rummy in the recent past are facing unnecessary and unwarranted troubles and nuisance at the hands of 4th respondent and the 4th respondent and his staff are very frequently coming to the society’s premises and literally obstructing the members from playing rummy or 13 cards without any authority and threatening the members with serious consequences is false, baseless and hence the same is denied. It is respectfully submitted that the Executive Members of the Society have never met this respondent at ay time and the allegation of the petitioner that his respondent told him that he has been acting undr the directives of the superiors, warning the society that if the games of bridge and rummy are played in the society’s premises, this respondent would not hesitate to take stern action against the society and its members and that cases would be booked against the society and the members is also false and baseless. In reply to para No.8 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that this respondent by interfering with and obstructing the recreational activities of the members of the society from playing rummy or 13 cards by stakes/syndicate are crossing their limits under the guise of lawful interference is also incorrect. The allegation of the petitioner that the fourth respondent and his men had come to the society’s premises on 14th March, 2009 and 16th April, 2009 and resorted threatening the members with booking cases against them is incorrect and hence denied. I respectfully submit that as of now, no cases are registered against the petitioner’s association. I submit that as a precautionary measure, the petitioner has rushed to this Hon’ble Court and filed the present writ petition. I submit that the respondent police has never interfered with the lawful activities of the petitioner’s club. Hence, the writ petition deserves no consideration.” Having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.4 in the above reproduced paras of the counter-affidavit, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP No.12119 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th June, 2009 vrn