A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Twin Cities Cinema cultural Centre (for short "the petitioner- club) is a registered Society and it obtained licence from the 1st respondent- commissioner of Police, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Hyderabad City police Act, 1348-F, vide licence No. 40/2001 dt. 2-11-2001 for providing cultural and recreation facilities to its members. The present writ petition is filed complaining the unauthorized interference of the respondents in so far as the card room of the petitioner- club. The case of the petitioner-Club is that it allows the game of Rummy only with stakes, which is played with 13 cards and syndicate in its card room. The petitioner- club does not allow its members and guests to play any other game with playing cards. Since the game of Rummy is a game of skill and the provisions of A. P. Gaming Act, 1974 (for short "the Act") are not applicable to the game of Rummy, the respondents are not justified in interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner-Club. It is also the case of the petitioner-Club that if the respondents suspect that any unlawful activities are going on in the premises of the petitioner-Club, they are supposed to follow the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, so that the members of the petitioner-Club are not subjected to any harassment. It is further averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the card room of the petitioner- club would throw light on the activities of the petitioner-Club, particularly the type of game that was allowed to play in the card room. Since the respondents are instructing to close down the card room, the petitioner- club is before this court seeking a direction to the respondents to forbear them from interfering with the petitioner-Club from conducting the card room where the members are allowed to play the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (13 card game ). Since the respondents are instructing to close down the card room, the petitioner- club is before this court seeking a direction to the respondents to forbear them from interfering with the petitioner-Club from conducting the card room where the members are allowed to play the game of rummy with stakes/syndicate (13 card game ). ( 2 ) IN response to the notice before admission, the respondents filed counter- affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner-Club inter alia stating that the management of the petitioner-Club is indulging in illegal activities, its members and guests are playing three cards in the said premises and that on coming to know of the same, the S. H. O. , Banjara Hills Police Station inspected the club and seized Rs. 31,520/-by registering a case in Cr. No. 274/2001 for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1974 and arrested 14 members who were playing the three card game. Again on 30-5-2001 the Banjara Hills Police with the assistance of Task Force raided the petitioner s club and arrested 152 members and seized Rs. 2,85,256/- and registered a case in Cr. No. 289 of 2001. It is further stated that the petitioner-Club obtained permission from 1st respondent to shift the said club premises from No. 564-A/12 Phase III road No. 92 Jubilee Hills to premises no. 8-2-293-82/a/171 /3 Road No. 13, Jubilee hills but on the representation made by the local residents to the higher authorities objecting the functioning of the said club in their locality, presently, the club is not functioning in the said premises. The police never interfered with the legal activities of the petitioner-Club. As the petitioner-Club is not functioning, the question of not allowing its members to play rummy does not arise. The present writ petition is filed without therebeing any cause of action to pre-empt the police to curb the illegal activities of the club. ( 3 ) IN view of the rival contentions, this court by order dt. 29-11-2001 appointed an advocate-Commissioner to inspect the premises of the petitioner-Club and submit a report. Accordingly, the Commissioner submitted his reportdt. 3-12-2001. Thereafter the matter underwent eight adjournments, but none appeared onbehalf of the petitioner- club nor any objections were filed to the report submitted by the Advocate- commissioner. 29-11-2001 appointed an advocate-Commissioner to inspect the premises of the petitioner-Club and submit a report. Accordingly, the Commissioner submitted his reportdt. 3-12-2001. Thereafter the matter underwent eight adjournments, but none appeared onbehalf of the petitioner- club nor any objections were filed to the report submitted by the Advocate- commissioner. ( 4 ) THE Commissioner in his report submitted that on the date of his visit to the club, he found that in the ground floor, three rooms each having four small syndicate tables and four tables were occupied by four members each and on his enquiry, he was informed that all the people were playing game of Rummy. On the first floor of the premises, which consists of three rooms, there are two big tables in the middle room, and it was fully occupied with six people playing on both the tables and he verified that game being played and found that all of them were playing was game of Rummy with stakes. ( 5 ) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel was that the rummy is a game of skill played by the members and section 15 of the Act clearly excludes such game from the purview of the provisions of the Act in view of the law declared by this court in Executive Club formed by Lalitha Real estates (P) Ltd. v. State of AP. by placing reliance on the law declared by the Apex court in State of A. P. v. K. Satyanarayana. In view of the same, interference by the police is unwarranted and they should be restrained from interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner-Club. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Asst. Government Pleader would contend that on receiving the information collected that management and its members are indulging in illegal activities, the Station House Officer along with his staff raided the petitioner- club and arrested the members who are playing three-card game and seized the amount involved in the betting and registered two crimes on different dates under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the same are pending investigation. In view of the same, police cannot be prevented from doing investigation and laying charge-sheet for the illegal activities committed by the members of the petitioner-club. In view of the same, police cannot be prevented from doing investigation and laying charge-sheet for the illegal activities committed by the members of the petitioner-club. It is always open for the management of the Club and also its members to lead evidence as and when the charge- sheet is filed, but only lawful activities are to be carried on in the club premises. She would further contend that game of Rummy is not a mere game of skill and it is a game of chance when played with stakes and placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this court in Venkat Varaha v. State. ( 7 ) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions it is useful to refer to the definition of "common gaming house" and "gaming". ( 7 ) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions it is useful to refer to the definition of "common gaming house" and "gaming". Section 2 of the Act defines "common gaming house" and it means: (i) (a) to (f) x x x x x x (ii) in the case of any other form of gaming, any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or any place whatsoever in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such, house, room, tent, enclosure, vessel, or place, whether by way of charge for the use of such house, room rent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place of instruments of gaming or otherwise howsoever; explanation:- For the purpose of sub- clause (ii), any premises or place belonging to or occupied by a club, society or other association of persons whether incorporated or not, which is used or kept for purposes of gaming shall be deemed to be a common gaming house notwithstanding that there is no profit or gain for the club, society or other association of persons on account thereof; the expression "gaming" is defined in sub-section (2) (a) of Section 2 which is as under: (A) gaming means playing a game for winning of prizes in money or otherwise and includes playing a game of mutka or satta and lucky board and wagering or betting; except where such wagering or betting takes place upon a horse race- (i) (ii) (iii) xxxxx (B) xxxxxxxx explanation:- For the purpose of this clause- (i) wagering or betting shall be deemed to compromise the collection or soliciting of bests, the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes in money or otherwise in receipt of any wager or bet, or any act which is intended to and or facilitate wagering or betting or such collection, soliciting, receipt or distribution, (ii) xxxxxxxx section 3 of the Act deals with penalty for opening a common gaming house. Section 4 deals with penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house. Section 15 of the act is para materia with Section 14 of the hyderabad Gambling Act which is re designated as A. P. (Telangana Area) gambling Act, (2 of 1350 Fasli) which reads as under:"15. Savings of games of skill:- Nothing in this Act shall apply to games of skill only wherever played. Section 15 of the act is para materia with Section 14 of the hyderabad Gambling Act which is re designated as A. P. (Telangana Area) gambling Act, (2 of 1350 Fasli) which reads as under:"15. Savings of games of skill:- Nothing in this Act shall apply to games of skill only wherever played. "the Apex Court in thecase of K. Satyanarayana (2 supra) while construing the provisions of section 14 with regard to playing of Rummy held as under: "as regards the extra charge for playing cards we may say that clubs usually make an extra charge for anything they supply to their members because it is with the extra payments that the management of the club is carried on and other amenities areprovided. lt is commonly known that accounts have to be kept, stocks have to be purchased, and maintained for the use of the members and service is given. Money is thus collected and there is expenditure for running of each section of the establishment. Just as some fee is charged for the games of billiards, pingpong, tennis, etc. , an extra charge for play ing cards (unless it is extravagant) would not show that the club laws making a profit or gain so as to render the club into a common gambling house. Similarly, a late fee is generally charged from members who use the club premises beyond the scheduled time. This is necessary because the servants of the club who attend on the members have to be paid extra remuneration by way of overtime and expenditure on light and other amenities has to be incurred yond the club hours. Such a charge is usual in most of theclubs and we can take judicial notice of the fact, (para 9) this leaves over for consideration only the sitting fee as it is called. In this connection, the account books of the club have been produced before us and they show that a fee of 50 paise is charged per person playing in the card room. This to our opinion is not such a heavy charge in a Members Club as to be described as an attempt to make profit or gain for the club. Of course, if it had been proved that 5 point per game were charged, that might have been considered asan illegal charge sufficient to bring the club with in the definition. This to our opinion is not such a heavy charge in a Members Club as to be described as an attempt to make profit or gain for the club. Of course, if it had been proved that 5 point per game were charged, that might have been considered asan illegal charge sufficient to bring the club with in the definition. As we have already pointed out the levy of that charge has not been proved. dp not establish that this was a common gambling house within the definition, (underline is of mine) (para 10) we are also not satisfied that the protection of Section 14 is not available in this case. The game of Rummy is not a game entire of chance like the three- card game mentioned in the Madras case to which we were referred. The three card game which goes under different names such as flush, brag etc. , is a game of pure chance. Rummy on the other hand/ requires certain amount of skill because the fall of the cards has to be memorized and the building up of rummy requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. We cannot, therefore, say that the game of Rummy is a game of entire chance. It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill. The chance in Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at a game of bridge. Infact in all games in which cards are shuffled and dealt out here is an element of chance because the distribution of the cards is not according to any set pattern but is dependent upon how the cards find their place in the shuffled pack. From this alone it cannot be said that Rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in it. of course, if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owner of the house of the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may frebrpughthome. of course, if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owner of the house of the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may frebrpughthome. fo flus^cqse, tryesg elejpgntsj^e^jfljssjng ajyilthgrefoj^jwg thjnk that the High Court was right in accepting tfr^ reference as it 4m- (underline is of mine) (para 12) ( 8 ) THIS court in Executive Club formed by lalitha Real Estates (P) Limited (1 supra) after considering the dicta laid down by the Apex court in the case of K. Satyanarayana (2 supra) held as follows;"it is thus obvious that the game of rummy is not a game of mere change; but a game which is preponderantly a game of skill. It may include an element of chance and it would nevertheless be a game of mere skill within the meaning of Section 15 of A. P. Gaming Act, 1974. Thus, the applicability of Sections 3 and 4 of A. P. Gaming Act, 1974, is excluded insofar as it relates to the game of rummy. Once it has to be held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable, whatever may be the stakes involved in playing such game would not be of any consequence". ( 9 ) IN view of the law declaredby the Apex court affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Revision case No. 479 of 1964 dt. 4-8-64 in the case of k. Satyanarayana (2 supra), the contention of the Government Pleader that the game of rummy is a game of chance when played with stakes in view of the Division Bench judgment of this court, on which much reliance was placed, cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) IN the case of Executive Club formed by lalitha Real Estates (P) Limited (1 supra) where members of the Club and Club moved this court for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them, this court after going through the charge-sheet and in the absence of any allegation about making a profit or gain by the owner of the house from the game of Rummy or any other game played quashed the proceedings. The issue whether the owner of the club or the house is making a profit or gain from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes, was never cropped up for consideration before the learned single Judge. But in the present case, it is categorically averred in the counter-affidavit that on the date when the police raided the petitioner-club on 18-5-2001,14 members were playing three- card game and involved in illegal activities and they registered Cr. No. 274/2001 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Again on 30-5-2001, the police raided the petitioner- club with the assistance of the Task Force and seized a sum of Rs. 2,85,258/- and registered a Crime No. 289/2001 under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which are pending investigation. The writ petition is filed only to pre-empt the. police from proceeding with further investigation to curb the illegal activities of the club. The said facts were not controverted by the petitioner-club by filing a reply affidavit. The Apex Court in the case of K. Satyanarayana (2 supra) categorically held that if the prosecution is able to establish and prove that 5 points per game were charged by the owner of the house or club that might have been considered as an illegal charge sufficient to bring the club within the definition and 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. In view of the same, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-club that police cannot interfere with the petitioner-club from conducting card room cannot be accepted. Moreover, the respondents already registered Cr. Nos. 274 and 289 of 2001 against the petitioner-club and its members and are investigating into the charges levelled against them, the same cannot be thwarted at this stage by issuing a mandamus as prayed for. In view of the same, if the police after investigation concludes that the owner of the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes, it is always open for the police to prosecute the owner of the common gaming house for the offence under the Act. In view of the same, if the police after investigation concludes that the owner of the club is making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes, it is always open for the police to prosecute the owner of the common gaming house for the offence under the Act. In such an event, it is also open for the petitioner-club to establish its case by leading contra evidence. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-club for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.