Manoranjan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. With the above clarification, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolulte. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
Judgment
Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Petitioner. Mr. R.A. Shaikh, APP for the Respondents. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 16th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard both the learned Counsel. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Petitioner challenge the action of Respondents in
forcibly preventing the Petitioner or its member in running a social group/society and insisting them to secure a licence under Bombay Police Act, 1951.
It is informed, the Society is a private organization with limited members as specified in the objects of the trust. The activities carried on by the Petitioner will not tantamount and to be construed as public activities or in public place. The games which are played by the members of society are for 2 WP 10.11.sxw amusement purposes and to increase skills of the members in the said games.
Learned Counsel Mr. Gole, after taking me through the object and the resolutions of the Petitioner - Trust invited my attention to the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1389 of 2008 whereby the claims of several Petitioners were accepted and in paragraph 10 it was observed as under :-
10. Once, it is established that the premises used for car club by the petitioners do not form public place, and are not the place of public amusement within the meaning of Section 2(13)(9) of the said Act, it is not necessary for this Court to go into other points sought to be raised.
The learned Counsel also invited my attention to Writ Petition No.811 of 2002 and the order dated July 11, 2002. Mr. Gole, during the course of his submission accepted, if the members travelled in violation to statutory provisions, they are bound to face the consequences thereof.
In the light of the Division Bench Judgment, and particularly when the organization of the Petitioner has restricted entries to its specified 100 members, the place of public amusement as is referred in Section 2(13)(9) could not be attracted and consequently, the powers in terms of Section 3 WP 10.11.sxw 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act would not be available to the point.
Taking these aspects, the insistence by the authorities to obtain licence, need not be exercised. The authorities concerned shall not insist and force the Petitioner to obtain a licence in terms of Section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act. However, if the Respondent - Authorities found that any illegal activities are carried at the Petitioner's premises, the Police authorities are at liberty to take action against the Petitioner's club/society. The Police authorities are not precluded from taking action against any member of the society if any gambling or any other activity is done in the premises which is prohibited under the provisions of the Prevention of Gambling Act, Bombay Police Act or any other statutory arrangement.
With the above clarification, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolulte.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Police Act, 1951; Bombay Police Act — s. 33(w); Prevention of Gambling Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Aug 2011. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
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.