THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 663 of 2010 Dated: 27.09.2010 Between: Sri Mamidi China Venkata Sivaiah, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 663 of 2010 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 06.09.2008 in W.P.No.16691 of 2008. The said writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner-Town Hall to play game of rummy as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner-Town Hall. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with directions as under: “Heard both sides. It has been represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also by the learned Government Pleader for Home that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1167 of 2002, dated 29.07.2002, wherein it is held as follows: “Therefore, the police authorities cannot obstruct the writ petitioner-club from conducting card room where the members and guests of the writ petitioner’s cultural center are allowed to play the game of rummy with stakes syndicate (thirteen card game). At the same time, we make it clear that the police is always at liberty to enter the premises and check as to whether the cultural center of the club is conducting card room where the members and guests of the petitioner’s cultural center are playing the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (thirteen card game), for the purpose of verification. If they receive any intimation, the police may enter the club and verify the same and proceed further if the members and guests of writ petitioner’s cultural center play other than the game of rummy with stakes syndicate (thirteen card game). The police authorities are also at liberty to proceed with the cases, which are already registered. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.” Following the same and for the reasons mentioned therein, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above decision of the Division Bench. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action against the members of the petitioner- Town Hall if they promote any illegal activity at the premises of the petitioner-Town Hall. No costs.” It is alleged in the contempt case that though the respondents allowed the petitioner to conduct the card room up to 31.12.2009 thereafter they were not allowed to conduct the same at the instance of the D.I.G of Police, West Godavari District. Hence, this contempt case. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 2 to 5 stating that the respondents have never objected or obstructed the game of rummy/syndicate i.e. 13 cards game which is a game of skill by the members of the petitioner-Town Hall. However, on information received by the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, it was found that organized gambling was going on in petitioner-Town Hall and that the habitual persons had been playing the cards by betting under the guise of the order of this Court by betting money and accordingly, Crime No.10 of 2009 was registered on the file of Palkol Town P.S. on 08.01.2009 under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter has been denied by the petitioner and it is asserted in the reply affidavit that the petitioner-Town Hall is not allowing its members to indulge in betting except playing the game of rummy/syndicate i.e. 13 card game with stakes i.e meagre money. Be that as it may, in the order passed in the writ petition itself it was left open to the respondents to take the necessary action in accordance with law in case the members of the petitioner-Town Hall promoted any illegal activity at the premises of the petitioner-Town Hall. As could be seen from the counter affidavit, the members of the petitioner-Town Hall had indulged in illegal activities and a case was registered and further proceedings are pending. Hence, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings by availing the appropriate remedy available under law, but it is not a case for taking cognisance under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.09.2010 KLP