Order : Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 6. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in a period of four weeks. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 29.07.2013 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for a mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner-association as at Annexure-E to the petition. 3. The petitioner-association is stated to have been registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and is carrying on its activities. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is only a recreation center and no illegal activities or game of chance is being played by them. Despite the said position, the sixth respondent is stated to have interfered with their business illegally. In that regard, an endorsement at Annexure-D dated 29.07.2013 has been issued directing the petitioner to close the Club and also the petitioner has been warned that if they indulge in any illegal activities in future, appropriate action would be taken against them. In that regard, the petitioner has made representation to the Commissioner of Police alleging interference by the sixth respondent without authority of law. Since the representation at Annexure-E has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned Government Advocate would seek to justify the action of the respondents by contending that whenever there are certain illegal activities committed in the name of the recreation Clubs, certainly the Police Authorities would be entitled to inspect the premises and take action in accordance with law. In that view the impugned issued is justified is the contention. 5. In the instant case, it is seen that the sixth respondent in any event has not booked any criminal case against the petitioner alleging any specific offence. If that be the position, the only question is as to whether the endorsement in the manner as issued and impugned at Annexure – D would be sustainable ? 6. 5. In the instant case, it is seen that the sixth respondent in any event has not booked any criminal case against the petitioner alleging any specific offence. If that be the position, the only question is as to whether the endorsement in the manner as issued and impugned at Annexure – D would be sustainable ? 6. A perusal of the endorsement would indicate that without taking any action in accordance with law, if in fact there was violation of law, the sixth respondent has issued directions to the petitioner to close the Club and the reason indicated is also that it has come to the knowledge of the sixth respondent that certain illegal activities are being carried out and a warning has also been issued in this regard. The sixth respondent in any event did not have the Authority to direct the petitioner to close the business, when no action has been initiated by registering the case against the petitioner with specific allegations. Therefore, in such circumstance, the impugned endorsement dated 29.07.2013 in its present form cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly quashed. 7. In that light, the direction for consideration of the representation would not arise at this juncture. Needless to mention that if the Police Authorities finds any illegal activities being carried on in the club, they would be entitled to take action only as per law. Without doing so if there is any illegal interference by the Police Authorities, certainly the petitioner would have the liberty of filing a fresh representation to the Commissioner of Police with specific details which would be considered by such authority. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.