Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. A.J. Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from the petition, are as under: 2.1 The petition has been filed by Shantvan Association, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Petitioner No. 2 is a Member and the President of the Petitioner No. 1-Association. The petitioner-Association is running a Club and different facilities for sports, recreation and games of skill, are extended to its members. The petitioner-Association also arranges different programs and activities for its members. It is stated that it is functioning on a “No Profit No Loss” basis, by charging a minimal amount from its members to meet with its expenses. The case of the petitioners is that the members of the petitioner-Association indulge in playing of the card game of ‘Rummy’, which is not entirely a game of chance, but is a game of skill, and does not fall within the purview of “gambling”. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in carrying out raids in the premises of the Club, on the ground that gambling activities are going on, which causes harassment to the members of the petitioner-Association and their guests, who are reputed citizens of Anand. It is stated in the petition that on account of the aforesaid action of the Police Authorities, the reputation of the petitioner-Association is being tarnished in the eyes of the general public, and the activities of the Association have been disturbed. In this background, the petitioner-Association has approached this Court, by filing the present petition. 3. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No. 2, wherein the contentions raised by the petitioners have been refuted and it has been averred that the respondent-authorities are acting, in accordance with law. 4. The petitioners have filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 2, reiterating the averments made in the petition. 5. Mr. Ravindra Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the members of the petitioner-Association are not indulging in any gambling activities. 4. The petitioners have filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 2, reiterating the averments made in the petition. 5. Mr. Ravindra Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the members of the petitioner-Association are not indulging in any gambling activities. The game of ‘Rummy’ that is being played by them in the premises of the Club, is a game of skill and not a game of chance, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana and Others reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 825. It is submitted that though the respondents can come and check out the premises of the Club, such checking should be done in a peaceful manner and should not result in causing hindrance to the members of the petitioner-Association. Moreover, the members should not be prevented from playing the card game of ‘Rummy’, on the pretext that it amounts to gambling. As the members of the petitioner-Association are not indulging in any illegal activities, the prayers made in the petition may be granted. 6. Mr. A.J. Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners against the respondent-authorities are vague and general, and are not supported by any material on record. The Police Authorities have a right to check the premises of the Club of the petitioner-Association, in order to ensure that no illegal activities are going on, and such checking cannot be termed as harassment. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it would be fruitful to advert to the observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana and Others (Supra), which are relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow: “12. 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 entirely 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 memorised and the building up of Rummy requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. 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 memorised 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. In fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and dealt out there 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 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 this case, these elements are missing and therefore we think that the High Court was right in accepting the reference as it did.” (emphasis supplied) 8. From the above judgment, it transpires that the card game of Rummy has been held to be a game involving a considerable amount of skill and cannot be termed as a game of chance, therefore, playing “Rummy” would not amount to gambling. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners have made arrangements for several recreational activities for its members in the premises of the Club, including the playing of “Rummy”. Unless and until, any illegal activities are actually found to be carried on, in the premises of the Club, it cannot be presumed that all activities that take place there are illegal in nature. At the same time, it deserves to be noticed that duty is cast upon the respondents to prevent illegal activities from being carried on within their jurisdiction. At the same time, it deserves to be noticed that duty is cast upon the respondents to prevent illegal activities from being carried on within their jurisdiction. To ensure this end, the respondents would be within their rights in conducting raids and checking the premises of the petitioner-Association in order to ascertain that no illegal activities are going on there. However, during the course of such raids or checks, the respondents should ensure that no undue harassment of the members of the petitioner-Association, their families, or guests, takes place and that no person is treated in an unbecoming manner. The respondents are not precluded from taking appropriate action under the relevant provisions of law, if found necessary. However, such action can be taken without causing unnecessary hindrance or creating an unpleasant atmosphere. It is clarified that the above observations may not be understood to mean that the respondents are precluded from filing a Criminal Case, if so warranted. 9. In the present case, no specific instances to the effect that gambling activities are being carried on in the premises of Petitioner No. 1-Association, have been put on record. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that no prejudice will be caused, if the members of the petitioner-Association are permitted to indulge in the card game of ‘Rummy’ within the premises of Club run by the petitioners, subject to the observations made hereinabove. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is partly-allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no orders as to costs. P P P P P