BALAJI RECREATION ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition is a Recreation association represented by its Secretary, sri. Prakash. Petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner - Association to obtain a license for the play of dart game, chess, rummy, snooker and carrom either under the Karnataka Police Act or under the licensing and Controlling of Place of Public amusement Order, Bangalore City, 1989, as the above said games are declared as games of skill by this Hon'ble Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner - Association and learned government Pleader appearing for respondents.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader appearing for respondents, at the outset, submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner -Association is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself by imposing exemplary cost for the reason that, petitioner - Association has not approached this Court with clean hands and stated true facts before this Court. In substantiation of the said submission, he pointed out that, petitioner-Association, had earlier filed a writ petition in WP no 5051/2008 on the same cause of action and seeking the same reliefs before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 28th March 2008 with cost of rs. 5,000/ -. This relevant material which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner has been deliberately and intentionally suppressed by petitioner in the instant writ petition. After going through the earlier writ petition filed by petitioner - Association, it is noticed that the averments made therein, paragraphs, page numbers, affidavit sworn to by petitioner, etc. are exactly the same as that of in the present writ petition. The only difference between the earlier writ petition and the present one is the date of filing the writ petitions. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is jiable to be dismissed with exemplary cost in view of suppression of material facts before this Court