M RADHAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common order is passed in all these writ petitions and the facts in W.P. No. 5866 of 1990 alone are stated for convenience.

(2.) The petitioner admittedly is a businessman and ekes out his live lihood by carrying on the business of Video Games at No. 5, S.K.R. Market, West Gate Road, Bangalore. He has alleged that the said Video Games are played on machines and they are not games of chance, but games of skill. He has invested a sum in excess of Rs. 1,00,000/- for purpose of carrying on the said business with the Video Games machines, securing a place to install them and furnish the said place. He has averred that the purpose of establishing the Video Game Parlour is for the purpose of encouraging the skill of the public in games of skill. Persons who are admitted to such Parlour run by him have to insert a coin in the slot provided for it in the machine and the machine itself automatically switched on for a particular duration during which time the person using the machine could play the game. It is further asserted that the said machines would not endanger human life and public safety. No wagering is permitted in playing such games. He has asserted, carrying on the said game is legal and valid and not in violation of law or rules for the time being. He is aggrieved by the fact that respondents-5 and 6 constantly visit his Parlour and ask him about a licence which is required to be obtained, despite his assurances and statements that such licence is not required to be taken for running a Parlour which provides a game of skill for the public. He has further alleged that the respondents held out threats to the customers of the petitioners and therefore, aggrieved by such acts and threats and apprehension that he may be prevented from carrying on the games has approached this Court inter alia contending that the action by respondents-4, 5 and 6 and the order passed by the second respondent-Commissioner of Police dated 15th September, 1989 purported to be a notification issued in violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. The reliefs prayed for are as follows:- "Whereforc, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain any licence either under the provisions of the Karaataka Police Act or under the Licensing and controlling of Places of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 to carry on the Video Games conducted by the petitioner and further grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case."

(3.) Mr. C.K. Venkatesh appearing for the petitioners in these petitions has submitted that if the game being a game of skill as asserted, cannot be considered an amusement or the place a public place of amusement as stated in the order and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner had no application and as the order had no application, he need not take out a licence. The argument is not well-founded.