M J SIVANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in SLP Nos. 11012/91, 10065-78 / 94, 18271-75 / 94, 18617-18630, 18316, 22759-22763 / 94, 22865-70 / 94, 675 / 95, 2347-53 / 95, 6437-6440 / 95, SLP................../ 95 (CC 1306).

(2.) These appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1303-23 / 90 dated September 17, 1990 and of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 404 / 86 and batch dated December 28, 1993. Since common questions of law arise in these cases, they are disposed of by common judgment.

(3.) The primary question is whether video games require to be regulated under the respective Mysore Police Act, 1963 and the notifications issued thereunder and the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the orders of the Tamil Nadu Government in GOMS No. 166-O dated January 18, 1993 and the allied. When the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, exercising the power under the Licencing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989, (for short 'Bangalore Order') called upon the appellants to obtain licences under that Order, they challenged his power and jurisdiction on diverse grounds. The single Judge held that video game is a game covered by Bangalore Order, the appellants are required to get licence thereunder to play the video games. It was further held that it does not violate their fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. The Division Bench upheld the view of the single Judge. Equally, Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the Madras City Police Act and the Order of the Government, placed reasonable restrictions on the right to carry on video games. It does not violate Articles 19(1)(g) and 21. Video games are games requiring licence under the Act and the Orders. The survey of working of the video games by a committee of high level police officers and a practising advocate who appeared for some of the appellants in the High Court, found the mal-practices committed in conducting the games. The video game is a game covered by the Act and the Order. The ban imposed on the named games as games of chance and permitting the rest of the games to be of games of skill was in public interest. The conditions of licence are not arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, the action of the Commissioner was within the power under the Act or the Order.