Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3545 (MAD)

Nanbargal Pozhuthupokku Manram, Regd. Society, Rep. by its President, Jaganathan v. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai & Others

2009-09-03

P.JYOTHIMANI

body2009
Judgment :- This writ petition is for a direction to forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful running and smooth functioning of the petitioner/Association. 2. It is the case of the petitioner/Association that they are running a recreation club and their complaint is that the respondents under the guise of investigation are interfering with the functioning of the association. 3. Under such circumstances, suffice it to pass the following order: (i) so long as the petitioner/association or its members carry on lawful activities, the respondents shall not interfere. However, if the respondents shall have specific information or bonafide suspect that the activities carried on by the petitioner club or its 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 petitioner or its 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 of the violation detected, as the case may be; and (iv) if for any valid reason or in enforcement of any provision of law, the activities of the petitioner club have to be suspended or closed, the respondents shall issue an order in writing to the said effect and without issuing a written order the respondents shall not orally direct closure of the petitioners recreation club. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.