THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.548 of 2011 ORDER: In this Contempt Case, it is the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court in order, dated 08.03.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.5553 of 2011. The order passed by this Court is to the following effect: “Pending further orders, respondents 1 to 5 are directed not to interfere with the activities of petitioners in their premises, including the card game of rummy. However, it is made clear that if any objectionable games are noticed, it is open for the respondent-police to take appropriate action.” In the Contempt Case, it is the case of the petitioners that in spite of such a direction, there is interference by the fourth respondent – Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, in its day- to-day activities. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that on 09.06.2011 at about 20.00 hours on credible information that certain non-members are playing 3 cards game (casino) in the open hall, the club premises was inspected, 22 persons along with the Supervisor, by name, Sri Venkat Reddy were arrested, cash of Rs.17,150/- was seized and a petty case vide P.C.No.3549/2011 was booked under Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act and under the provisions of the City Police Act. It is also stated that the arrested persons were produced before the learned XIII Metropolitan Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad and they were convicted with a fine in S.T.C.No.1704 of 2011. From a perusal of the order of this Court, it is clear that this Court granted liberty to the police to take appropriate action if any objectionable games are noticed in the petitioners’ premises. In the light of the explanation offered by the respondents that playing of 3 cards game, which is not permitted under the law, was allowed by the petitioners, I do not find any contemptuous action on the part of the respondents, more so, such of the persons, who were arrested, were already convicted with fine by the competent Court. In that view of the matter, the Contempt Case is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th JULY, 2011. kvni