AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.926 OF 2009 Sam George Michael ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner is the Secretary of Vijay Krida Mandal (“the Mandal” for convenience). The grievance of the petitioner is that the officers from Special Squad of Superintendent of Police, Sangli visited the premises of the Mandal and gave threats to its members. The case of the petitioner is that the Mandal is a non-commercial social club, It is a private club and, therefore, it does not require any licence. AJN 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that because the Mandal is not a place of public amusement it is not covered by the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public amusement including Pool game Parlours, Amusement Parlours providing Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games,Cyber Cafes, Games with net, internet or intranet connectivity, Bowling Alleys, Card Rooms, Social Clubs Sports Clubs, Cabaret performances, Discotteque, Games, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960. We are informed that the view canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken by a Division Bench of this court in Cricket Club of India Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2009 (1) Mh. L.J. 450. By order dated 1/4/2009, in Criminal Writ Petition No.499 of 2009, another Division Bench of this court (Bilal Nazki & F.M. Reis, JJ.) has expressed that the matter needs to be referred to the Full Bench of this court because even if a club is meant for its members it requires licence. Therefore, as of today it is not possible for us to state AJN 3 whether a licence is required by the petitioner’s club or not. 3. We have noticed that the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 171 of 2009 in this court. The said petition was taken up before learned Single Judge for admission and on 11/2/09 by a reasoned order learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in limine, after recording statement made by learned APP that no officer from the police station had visited the premises of the Mandal, or issued any threats to any member. We have not understood as to how when one petition was moved before learned Single Judge wherein also there was no challenge to any order, second petition within such a short span of time can be moved before the Division Bench for the same relief. If the present petition is rightly moved before the Division Bench then obviously Criminal Writ Petition No. 171 of 2009 was moved before the wrong Bench. Similar allegations as were made in Criminal Writ Petition No. 171 of 2009 are made in this petition except AJN 4 that the names of the officers who had allegedly given threats are stated in this petition. 4. Learned APP on instructions makes a statement that no threats were given to any members by the concerned officers. Whether threats were given or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by us in our in writ jurisdiction. It is not possible for us to restrain any police officer from visiting any club, if he receives information that any illegal activities are going on in that club. However, the police officers are expected to do their work in accordance with law. If any illegal activities are going on they would be justified in taking action not otherwise. They should restrain themselves from causing any unnecessary harassment to the people by giving threats. 5. With this observation the petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]