ORDER : 1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the action of the respondents in interfering/obstructing the petitioners clubs from conducting card room for playing the games of Rummy/Syndicate with stakes by their members and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.4103 of 2017 was filed by the MLAS’ Colony Residents Welfare and Cultural Association, Hyderabad, whereas, W.P.No.4636 of 2017 was filed by the Advocates’ Recreation Club, Karimnagar, W.P. No.8478 of 2017 was filed by one Navodaya Sports and Cultural Association, West Godavari district and W.P. No.8717 of 2017 was filed by one ABS Town Hall in the same district. 3. The common case of the petitioners is that they were registered under the Societies Registration Act and have been conducting their affairs within the purview of aims and objectives and bye-laws of their respective societies. Their activities are confined to the members of the association and they are maintaining a card room where games of skill only are allowed to be played. Their games of skill do not fall under the definition of gambling and in spite of the same the respondents are interfering with their activities. 4. Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.4103 and 8478 of 2017 denying the averments of interference in the activities of the petitioners associations and specifically stating that the petitioners approached this Court on mere apprehension. However, it is also stated that ‘Rummy’ is not a total skill game, but an element of chance is also involved. It is common knowledge that several clubs are facilitating the games of chance under the guise of providing games of skill and in order to curb such illegal activities the respondents are entering the premises of such recreation clubs to ascertain whether any game of chance other than ‘Rummy’ was being played and whether any illegal activities were being carried on therein. 5. 5. In view of the denial of the interference and the right of the respondents to inspect the premises in order to curb the illegal activities, if any, taking place, when this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petitions, the learned counsel relied on earlier orders of this Court and also on the decisions reported in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana (1995 Supp (1) SCC 461) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hirendra Pal Singh (2011) 5 SCC 305 ) and submitted that in view of the earlier orders, this Court has to follow the same orders and dispose of the present batch of cases on similar lines. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submitted that the game of ‘Rummy’ is not a game of mere skill, but it involves an element of chance and the respondents cannot be prevented from discharging their statutory duties. He relied on the decisions reported in Cherupu Venkata Varaha Narasimham v. State of A.P. ( AIR 1968 A.P. 344 ), Jagat Singh Kishor Singh Darbar v. State of Gujarat (1979) 4 SCC 307 ), The State of AP v. K. Satyanarayana ( AIR 1968 SC 825 (1), and Abraham v. State of Kerala (2000) 3 KLT 163 = ILR (Ker) 2000 (3) 763). 7. No doubt, this Court in W.P.No.30597 of 2014 and batch dated 29.10.2015, after considering the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader in identical circumstances, held that the game of ‘Rummy’ with 13 cards is not a game of mere chance and it is preponderantly a game of skill. The decision of the Madras High Court in Mahalakshmi Cultural Association v. The Director, Inspector General of Police (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15371/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22.03.2012 in WA No. 2287/2011 passed by the High Court of Madras), relied on by the learned Government Pleader, was held to be not available in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.08.2015 in an appeal preferred against the said order by the State and withdrawal of the Writ Petition by the respondent/writ petitioner. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (2003) 12 SCC 627 ), relied on by the learned Government Pleader, was held to be not applicable, since there is an allegation of violation of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’) on the part of the respondents and there was a prayer and direction to adhere to the same. Ultimately, this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following observations. “1. Directing the respondent police authorities not to interfere with the card game of rummy (13 card game) whatever be the stakes; 2. Directing the petitioners to install video cameras and record the entire recreational activities in the clubs and preserve the said data at least for a period of fortnight so that the police can check the footage. The said C.C cameras shall be connected with the jurisdictional police stations and the Office of the Superintendent of Police for observation by the police to find out as to whether members of the clubs are indulging in the activity of gambling. If any of the gaming places is not covered by C.C. cameras, it is for the police to take action. 3. Declaring that the police are entitled to enter into the premises of the petitioners’ club for taking action as per law in the event of there being any violation of the provisions of law by the petitioners and the petitioners shall not cause any hindrance to the police in exercising their statutory powers; and 4. Declaring that this order would not come in the way of the respondents from taking action as per law. 5. Declaring that any deviation of the above guidelines by the petitioners’ clubs will be construed as violation of these orders.” 8. The order of this Court maintained the balance between the responsibilities of the petitioners and duties of the respondent police, but what is involved in the cases of this nature is with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petitions at threshold on the mere allegation of interference of the police without there being any proof of actual interference and the application of the provisions of the Gaming Act. This court need not issue any declaration even before any actual violation takes place and examine the consequences of that violation. This court need not issue any declaration even before any actual violation takes place and examine the consequences of that violation. We are used to only four types of Writs viz., Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Quo Warranto. In cases of this nature, if a wrongful order is passed, the same can be challenged seeking a Writ of Certiorari, and the Writ of Prohibition and Quo Warranto are not available. All these cases are filed for a Writ of Mandamus, the contours of which are clearly delineated. Mandamus is a command to do particular act in a particular manner and whether Mandamus would lie in the facts of this case has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, the provisions of which are applicable to both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 9. Section 2 of the Act defines a ‘common gaming house’ including any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in which the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes, in money or otherwise, is made to depend on chance and any house or room or tent or enclosure, vehicle, vessels or any place whatsoever in which gaming takes place or in which the horses or other instruments of gaming, are kept or used for such gaming. In respect of other forms of gaming also such places were held to be ‘common gaming house’, but, however, in respect of other forms of gaming the explanation states that 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. Sub-section (4) of Section 2 defines ‘instruments of gaming’ as including cards, dice, gaming labels, or cloths, boards or any other article used or intended to be used as a subject or means of gaming, any document used or intended to be used as a register or record of evidence of any gaming, the proceeds of any gaming and any winnings or prizes in money or otherwise, distributed or intended to be distributed in respect of any gaming. Section 3 provides for penalty for opening a common gaming house. Section 3 provides for penalty for opening a common gaming house. Section 4 provides for penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house. In respect of search or seizure, the requirement of warrant of higher officer is provided in Section 5. Section 6 states that the instruments of gaming found in any place entered or searched shall be presumed that such place is used as a common gaming house. The clubs, societies or other associations of persons are exempted from the provisions of penalty, search and seizure and the instruments found in the place of common gaming house unless persons are actually found gaming in such premises or place. Section 9 provides for penalty for gaming or setting birds or animals to fight in a public street or place and Section 10 enables the police to arrest without warrant for such activity. The informants are given an incentive of payment of portion of fine under Section 14. The provisions of the entire Act are held to be not applicable if the games are games of skill wherever they are played. 10. Thus, the scheme of the Act prohibits opening of common gaming house and activity of gaming in such house. This prohibition of gaming is applicable to all gaming houses including clubs and societies, but in order to make it applicable to some clubs and societies it has to be proved that the persons are actually found gaming in such premises or place. The safeguard provided under Section 5 to enter a common gaming house without the authority of judicial or executive magistrate or any police officer of particular jurisdiction is not applicable even in respect of clubs or societies, where the persons are actually found gaming. Any gaming activity in public street or place is totally prohibited. Section 15 totally exempts the application of the provisions of the Act to the games of skill. Now, by relying on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of games of skill and asserting that the members of the petitioners clubs are indulging only in a game of skill, these writ petitions are filed. 11. It is difficult for anyone to say what is happening inside the premises. When the fish is in water it is commonly said that it is difficult to prove whether fish is drinking water or not. 11. It is difficult for anyone to say what is happening inside the premises. When the fish is in water it is commonly said that it is difficult to prove whether fish is drinking water or not. In such circumstances, the better option for the Courts is to apply the law only whenever the cause of action arises on the facts of a particular case in the light of the provisions of the Act, but not on mere apprehension, assertions and denials. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the reliance on which was placed by the learned single Judge of this Court are cases which arose out of the prosecution launched by the police after alleged violation of provisions of the Act and arose out of the facts of those cases. Similarly, the decisions cited by the learned Government Pleader also arose out of criminal proceedings launched in particular instances on respective occasions. Whenever prosecution is launched, it is open to the accused to take such defences which are available under law including the defence of a particular gaming being a game of skill and non-application of the provisions of the entire Act under Section 15. But, this Court cannot give a declaration, as aforesaid, on assertions and denials without happening of any event. 12. When this view of the Court was expressed, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that, in view of the earlier pronouncements of this Court by two learned Judges and in view of the facts situation being identical, this Court is bound to follow the said orders and grant relief to the petitioners. I am in respectful disagreement with such view, as the view expressed by me in this batch of cases was not considered in those decisions. It is settled law that no case can be decided in vacuum or in the absence of a cause of action. For example, in W.P.No.4636 of 2017 it is averred that the club was registered on 19.01.2017 and the fourth respondent therein, the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar orally instructed the petitioner club not to play the skill game of ‘Rummy’ on 02.02.2017. In that fact situation, this Court cannot restrain the fourth respondent by advising him to follow Section 15 of the Act by visualising that the members of the petitioners associations confine themselves to the provisions of the Act. In that fact situation, this Court cannot restrain the fourth respondent by advising him to follow Section 15 of the Act by visualising that the members of the petitioners associations confine themselves to the provisions of the Act. The Act is intended to check unlawful activities and everyone including the police is supposed to follow the law. In case of violation of law, both parties have to face the consequences. This basic principle cannot be declared by issuing a Writ of Mandamus. In case of violation of the provisions of the Act, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the members of the petitioners association do not come under the purview of Section 15 of the Act and it is for the petitioners to plead that they come under Section 15. Whether particular game played by the persons at a particular moment comes within the game of skill or not is a matter for enquiry on the basis of evidence. If there is likelihood of misuse of the provisions of the enactment, it is for the Legislature to step in and make necessary amendments in the interest of public, but this Court cannot issue a Writ even without a cause of action. 13. In Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 11 SCC 113 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “42. In this regard reference to the decision in Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao ((2002) 4 SCC 638) would be fruitful. In the said case, a three-Judge Bench of the Court, while dealing with the order of the High Court to issue mandamus, opined: (SCC p.659, para 17) “17…… One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus. “Mandamus” means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. “Mandamus” means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition (Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1962 SC 1183 ). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. (emphasis in original) 14. In Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “13. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2149 ), AIR para 15; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Dy. (See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2149 ), AIR para 15; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Dy. Custodian-cum-Managing Officer ( AIR 1966 SC 334 and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1973 SC 964 ).” 15. In view of the above clear enunciation of law with regard to the issuance of Writs of Mandamus, this court cannot issue the Writ of Mandamus as sought by the petitioners in the above fact situation. 16. These Writ Petitions are, thus, not maintainable and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.