Judgment : 1. Petitioner is a Club registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975. According to the petitioner, with an object of providing facilities for recreation and game to their members, it has been functioning. It is submitted that the games that are played in their club like Table Tennis, Chess, Carrom Board and Rummy are all games of skill and there is no element of gambling involved in the games. It is further submitted that inspite of their confining themselves purely to games of skill and recreational activities, the respondents are trying to interfere with the activities of their club. It is also submitted that any interference in their activities will be violation of their freedom. 2. The Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 provides for punishment for gaming and keeping of common gaming houses. "Common Gaming House" has been defined under the Act as an enclosure, room or place in which cards, dice, tables or other instruments of gaming are kept or used for profit or gain to the person owning, occupying or using etc. or otherwise the premises howsoever. Gaming has been defined as wagering or betting. Section 5 of the Act gives power to issue warrant to enter a common gaming house. 3. Thequestion whether or not a game is of mere skill is a question of fact. In Saligram v. Emperor, 1933 Cal 8, a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court, dealing with the Calcutta Police Act, held that in order to escape conviction under Section 4 of that Act, it must be shown by the defence that to all intents and purposes, on a broad and reasonable view of the matter, the game was one of skill and nothing else. It was held that the question whether or not the game is of mere skill for the purpose of invoking the protection of Section 50-A of the Act is a question of fact. In M. Lal & Others in re, 1975 L.W. (Crl.) 11, this Court, by taking a combined reading of Section 4 of the provisions of the City Police Act, held that if a person who owns or occupies or has a use of any house or room, uses the same for the purpose of collecting or soliciting of bets, receiving or distributing of winnings or prizes of any wager is liable to be punished. Gaming by itself is playing any game, sport, past-time or exercise, lawful or unlawful, for money or any other valuable thing which is tacked on the result of the game, i.e. which has to be lost or won according to the success or failure of the person who is tacked. Gaming is now always associated with taking of money or monies worth on the result of a game of pure chance of mixed skill and chance. 4. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in V.V. Krishna Rao v. District Magistrate, A.I.R. 1977 A.P. 128, dealing with the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act, 1888, similar to the (Tamil Nadu) Places of Public Resort Act, 1888, which provides for licence for use of a building for public resort or entertainment, held that the restriction on the games of darts and shooting galleries on the basis that the games are being played in places of public resort as games of chance comes within the reasonable restriction of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Though in this case, petitioner club cannot be called as public premises since the provisions of the Gaming Act will be in operation, any restriction on games of chance, therefore, cannot be held to be unreasonable. It was observed by their lordships as follows: "Now, the apprehension expressed by the Government in the latter Government Order of 1958 is that though the games like darts, which are played in amusement parks, are games of skill in technique; but, the manner in which they are actually played makes them games of chance. In order to prevent the general public from falling a prey to this gambling practice, they imposed the restriction that games of darts in the manner in which they are played in the place of public resort should not be allowed. This restriction is clearly conceived in the interest of general public, of which we entertain no doubt." Therefore, games of chance, whether they are played in public place or in a club, can always be interfered with by resorting to the provisions of the Act. 5. While construing the Malwa (Madhya Bharathi) Act, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Krishna Chandra v. State of M.P,. 5. While construing the Malwa (Madhya Bharathi) Act, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Krishna Chandra v. State of M.P,. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 307, upheld the provisions of the Act holding that there is nothing in the definition of "gaming" or instruments of gaming themselves which is unreasonable or which makes them offend any of the guaranteed rights or which does not serve the essential purpose of the Act. Their Lordships further- held as follows : "The safeguards like - (a) the existence of credible information, (b) seizure of articles suspected to be instruments of gaming which bear out information on which action is taken, and (c) proof to the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for holding that the articles are instruments of gaming, are sufficient safeguards to ensure that there is no danger to - (i) except to those who are proved to the satisfaction of the court to keep a gaming house, or (ii) whocan be presumed unless the contrary to be proved to be there for the purpose of gaming-" It was further held that since the impugned provisions are thus constitutional, the curtailment of liberty would not be except according to law and hence, there is no breach of Article 21. 6. The question whether the game of rummy is a game of chance or a skill game came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 825. Their Lordships, in this case, while observing that the game of rummy is not a game entirely of chance like the three card game, held that rummy requires certain amount of skill because the fall of cards has to be memorised and the building up of rummy requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill. However, their lordships observed as follows : "Of course, if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owner of the house or the club is making a profit or gain from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may be brought home." Thus, if the club is involved in making a profit out of the game of rummy, then it is open to the respondents to take appropriate proceedings. As has been held in many decisions, the question whether the petitioner club is involved in recreational activities and games of pure skill is a pure question of fact and hence, there cannot be a blanket order restraining the respondents from interfering with their activities. 7. Therefore, while it is the right of the petitioner to have recreational activities which are not prohibited, the respondents right to take appropriate proceedings against illegal games of betting, wagering, etc. is also provided for under the Act. There cannot be a blanket direction as prayed for by the petitioner. The question whether a particular game is a game of skill or chance is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. As and when proceedings are initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law, petitioner shall always have the right to question the same or challenge the action of the respondents if it is not in accordance with law. 8. A reference was made to a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 14560 of 1992, dated 23.9.1992, following a similar order in W.P. No.10600 of 1992, dated 4.8.1992, wherein it was held that normally, lawful activities of the club should not be disturbed by very frequent visits of the police. However, it was held that in case any unlawful activities are carried on, it is always open to the police department to discharge their duty by taking steps for preventing such activities. Hence, there cannot be a general direction to the respondents to forbear from interfering in any manner with the day-to-day activities of the petitioner club. 9. For the above reasons, no relief can be granted as prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WP.M.P.No.37610 of 2001 is closed.