Judgment :- Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein and their subordinate officials from in any manner interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner Club to play the game of rummy with stakes and other indoor games in the premises of the petitioner Club at No.5/157, Pollachi Dharapurm Road, Chandrapuram, Munduvelampatti Village, Poolavadi 642 206, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would give the details regarding the existence of their club, its objectives, its membership and the games played therein with a sporting interest and some members of the club play games of bridge and rummy, in accordance with the memorandum and bylaws framed with the Registrar of Societies. 4. The petitioner club would further submit that the troubles given to their club activities by the third respondent leading to the petitioner to file a writ petition in W.P. No.4870 of 2002 praying for the similar relief extracted supra and this Court also passed its order on 19.2.2002. 5. 4. The petitioner club would further submit that the troubles given to their club activities by the third respondent leading to the petitioner to file a writ petition in W.P. No.4870 of 2002 praying for the similar relief extracted supra and this Court also passed its order on 19.2.2002. 5. The petitioner would further submit that the petitioner Club, without violating the statutory provisions, is carrying on with its activities and that the respondents have no manner of any right to interfere with such of the legal rights of the petitioner Club; that in spite of the order dated 19.2.2002, the third respondent has inspected the Club several times only to find no illegal activity or gambling taking place within the club premises and the second respondent also started insisting the petitioner to remove the sign board of the club and that the club should be closed and in spite of proper explanation offered by the petitioner Club, ignoring the same, the second respondent has instructed the third respondent to issue a notice dated 21.3.2002 to the petitioner club making a mention of the order of this court and stating that the petitioner is misusing the orders of this Court and conducting gambling in the club premises and instructed the petitioner to close down the club; that the petitioner, on receipt of the said notice, sent a detailed reply to the respondents on 22.3.2002, but still, the threat continues; that other legal notices have also been served on the respondents by the petitioner club, and therefore, terming that such activities of the respondents amount to contempt of court, would ultimately pray to the relief extracted supra. 6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Club, besides citing Section 5 of the Gambling Act and the notice issued by the third respondent, would submit that the contents of the notice dated 21.3.2002 are to the effect that getting an order from the High Court for playing rummy, the members of the petitioner Club are indulging in gambling and there are sufficient reasons for initiating legal action against them, and therefore the notice directs the petitioner to close down the club, immediately after the receipt of the said notice. 7. The learned counsel would cite an order of this Court delivered in Sundaram VS. 7. The learned counsel would cite an order of this Court delivered in Sundaram VS. The State by the Sub-Inspector of Police reported in 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 183, wherein it is held therein: "The running of a common gaming house is a primordial requisite before anyone can be convicted under Sections 8 or 9 of the Madras Gaming Act. Beforeever a person can be convicted under Section 8 or under Section 9, there must be proof that a common gaming house was being run by someone and that such place was being made use of for gaming activities. In the instant case, there is absolutely no mention in the report about anybody running a common gaming house. All that is stated is that the 10th petitioner (watchman) had permitted the other petitioners to play cards' games inside the premises. There is absolutely no mention about the 10th petitioner permitting the use of the premises for gaming activities with a view to derive profit or gain for himself." "In this case, in spite of the legal position being well settled, the police authorities, particularly the lower strata of Officers seem to be completely unaware of the provisions of law. It is not known whether their ignorance of the correct legal position is on account of lack of proper instructions or due to a wanton attitude to flout the law. On this one ground alone, the proceedings pending before the Court below deserve to be quashed. There was no urgency in the matter, and the Sub Inspector could have very well obtained a search warrant and then proceeded to the premises to make a search of it." Yet another order would also be cited by the learned counsel, which was delivered by a single Judge of this Court in W.Ps. Nos.14239 and 14240 of 2002 dated 29.4.2002, wherein the learned Judge has evolved certain principles and issued directions to the respondents therein. 8. Nos.14239 and 14240 of 2002 dated 29.4.2002, wherein the learned Judge has evolved certain principles and issued directions to the respondents therein. 8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) as well, it comes to be known that in spite of certain directions having been issued by this Court in the earlier order made in W.P. No.4870 of 2002 dated 19.2.2002, the petitioner, citing a letter addressed to its Club by the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, and alleging that it is violative of the rights of the petitioner Club to have their club activities, and therefore, seeking further directions, has come forward to file the above writ petition. 9. In the notice dated 21.3.2002 issued by the third respondent to the petitioner Club, it is generally alleged that in the name of playing rummy, the petitioner club is carrying on gambling within the club premises, and therefore, advising the club authorities to close down the club activities, the said notice has been issued. 10. Though the order of this Court passed earlier gives the outline of the code of conduct of the club activities as well as the ambit of exercising jurisdiction by the respondents, still, in practice, whether some or any of the activities of the members of the petitioner club within the premises, is actionable by the respondents or not, is to be decided from the particular and specific acts being perpetrated by the club. But the notice issued by the third respondent is in a generalised manner stating that the activities being carried on, particularly, the game played is not rummy, but gambling, which is within the prohibitive degree, and therefore, would advise the petitioner to close down the club activities, as a whole. No law permits the respondents to pass an order of such nature advising to close the activities of the club as a whole especially when it is licenced by the licensing authorities in exercise of their legal powers. No law permits the respondents to pass an order of such nature advising to close the activities of the club as a whole especially when it is licenced by the licensing authorities in exercise of their legal powers. What the respondents are empowered by law is that in case of any specific act takes place in the club which is violative of the criminal laws, prosecution could be launched and the respondents cannot dictate terms to the petitioner club either to close the club or to prevent them from having their daily routine club activities. 11. However, in the second order cited by the learned counsel extracted supra from W.P. Nos.14239 and 14240 of 2002 dated 29.4.2002, since it gives more clarity as to the rights of the parties such as that of the petitioner and the respondents, adopting the same, this Court is inclined to pass the following order. In result, the above writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) So long as the petitioner club or their members carry on lawful activities, the respondents shall not interfere. However, if the respondents have specific information or bona fide suspect that the activities carried on by the petitioner club or their members are not in accordance with the statutory provisions, or the respondents have reason to believe that there is a violation of the provisions of the Gaming Act or any other enactment, it is well open to the respondents or their subordinates to enter the petitioner club premises, conduct investigation, question those who involved themselves in such activities and take appropriate action. (ii) It is open to the petitioners or their members to defend themselves in case of any prosecution levelled and it is equally open to them to challenge the action of the respondents if it is not in accordance with law. (iii) The respondents or their subordinates or their men shall not be entitled to enter into the club premises or question the office bearers or other members of the club, so long as the club members confine their club to lawful activities as is permissible in law and if specific information is received, after recording the same in the Station Records, the respondents may enter, investigate, question the members, proceed further according to the gravity of the offence or the violation detected, as the case may be. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.