IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13922 of 2010 Between: M/s. Epitome Sports & Cultural Associations, rep. by its President Sri D.Madhava Reddy ..... PETITIONER (S) AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13922 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. At their request the Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The case of the petitioner-association is that the association has been registered with the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad, vide Regn.No.320 of 2010 dated 10.05.2010 and is providing facilities namely indoor and outdoor games to its members and guests. It is further stated that the affairs of association are being managed by executive committee elected by the members and when the 4th respondent visited its premises and directed to close down the activities of 13 cards game, they filed W.P.No.11929 of 2010 wherein this Court, by order dated 26.05.2010, directed the 4th respondent not to interfere with the 13 cards rummy game. The main grievance of the petitioner- association is that the 4th respondent is insisting them to obtain licence from the 1st respondent under Section 21(f)(i) of Hyderabad City Police Act (for short – ‘the Act’) and till such time to close the association though they have shown several judgments of this Court in this regard and a copy of the memo dated 27.05.2008 issued by the 1st respondent that in view of the orders of this Court the question of issuance of entertainment licence to run the club under Section 21 (f)(i) of the Act does not arise. It is also stated that the 4th respondent is threatening them to obtain the licence from the 1st respondent otherwise he will put seal to the premises and foist cases against the members who are found at the time of his visit. The 4th respondent, in the counter affidavit filed by him, denied the allegation made against him that he insisted and compelled the petitioner to obtain licence under Section 21(f)(i) of the act and submitted that he never visited the premises of the petitioner-association and interfered with its lawful activities. In view of the submissions made in the counter affidavit, no orders need be passed in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. 8th September 2010 CVRK