Tameria Rambabu v. Godavari Dist
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner referred to above. However, it is made clear that, if any game conducted by the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, or order particularly in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinate officers in East Godavari District in interfering with the exhibition of games of Skill such as 1. Ring throw, 2 Ball Box, 3 Video Games, 4. Dart Throw and 5. Steel Game as illegal, void, arbitrary and in contravention of section 15 of AP. Gaming Act., 1974. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with the business of the petitioner in exhibiting skill games such as ring throw, ball box, video games, dart throw, steel game etc., even though the said games do not attract or contravene the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for short “the Act”).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent officials are interfering with the said activities of the petitioner, which is the sole source of livelihood the petitioner, while providing entertainment to the children. He also stated that this Court has already disposed of similar matters.
Operative part
Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner referred to above. However, it is made clear that, if any game conducted by the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, it is always open to the respondents to take appropriate action against him according to law. 23-06-2004 ______________ Note: Furnish C.C in two days b/o To 1. The Superintending of Police, East Godavari Dist, Kakinada. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Peddapuram , East Godavari Dist 3 The Inspector of Police , Peddapuram, East Godavari Dist 4 The Station House Officer, Peddapuram P.S., East Godavari Dist 5. Two C.Cs to G.P for Home, Hiigh Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two C.D copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; AP. Gaming Act — s. 15; Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Jun 2004. The bench was S ANANDA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.