K.K.SASIDHARAN/ - (1.)THE petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, for bearing the respondents from interfering with the affairs of their club conducted at Door No.69, Kamachiamman Street, Ward No.18, Gudalore post, Uthamapalayam Taluk, THEni District.
(2.)THE petitioner's club was registered as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 as per Registration No.1175 of 2003, dated 15.12.2003. According to the petitioner, the club was established for the purpose of serving the village people as well as to develop the sports activities of the members of the club. THE petitioner was engaged in promoting the social status of the youths and members of the club by various sports activities, such as cricket, football, chess and playing cards. THE members of the petitioner club also used to play cards without the involvement of money and they never indulged in the act of gambling. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has been interfering and disturbing the lawful activities of the club, which made them to file the writ petition.
The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner has been using the premises for playing cards with gambling phenomena and two gambling cases had been registered against the members of the petitioner club. It was alleged that the club was engaged in playing games known as "vettu chettu" and two cases were registered before the Gudalore North Police Station in Crime Nos.224 of 2007 and 225 of 2007 as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act. The accused pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate and accordingly, they were sentenced to pay fine. According to the third respondent, as a Police Inspector, he is having the right to inspect the premises with a view to stop the illegal activities and to file cases, in case the club members were involved in gambling and other illegal activities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the third respondent has no business to enter the premises of the petitioner, as they were only engaged in recreational facilities. The learned counsel maintained that the club was not allowing its members to play cards with money and as such, the contra allegations made by the third respondent was false.

(3.)THE learned Government Advocate would contend that in the normal circumstances, there was no occasion for the police to enter the premises and it was only on account of the illegal activities conducted in the premises which compelled the police to enter the club and to arrest the accused. In such circumstances, the learned Government Advocate justified the action taken by the third respondent.
The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the interference in the affairs of the club at the instance of the third respondent. The petitioner club was entitled to conduct lawful activities in their premises. It was not permissible for the third respondent to deny the petitioner of its lawful activities. It was only in the event of the petitioner club permitting illegal activities, like "vettu chettu" which involves money and an element of gambling, which would give a cause of action to the third respondent to enter the premises to ensure as to whether the club was used for a purpose other than for which it was registered. The petitioner was entitled to conduct its affairs in an orderly manner. It was the duty of the petitioner to keep the premises only for sports and arts purposes without permitting its members to engage in gambling and other illegal activities.