M. Radhakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) karnataka police act, 1963 (karnataka act no. 4 of 1964) - sections 2(14) & 31 - place of public amusement - video game parlour - definition not exhaustive, but illustrative - ingredients - anything diverting person from usual occupation or enabling him to play a game of skill or no skill, with access to public - video game parlour 'place of public amusement' covered by section 31. ; (i) from the language employed in the definition of the 'place of public amusement', the necessary ingredients to bring within its ambit are: the public must have access to the place and anyone of the enumerated or illustrative events are conducted. the definition is not exhaustive, but illustrative. for instance, the expression 'any diversion or game or the means for carrying on the same is provided and to which public are admitted' clearly indicates that within the definition anything which diverts any person from his usual occupation or enables him to play a game will be an amusement and where that amusement is provided with access to the public as opposed to personal or private, it will be a place of public amusement. from the meaning of the word 'amusement' in english language, it is clear that any game which diverts a person from his usual occupation for entertainment would constitute 'amusement' which can even be listening to music or playing musical instrument or playing any game of skill or no skill which will give amusement to the person playing. ; (ii) it would be incorrect to assert that the video games are not games of amusement merely because it is supposed to assist the person playing the games to acquire skill. the person who has acquired the skill of playing the game does not stop visiting video parlour because he has acquired the required skill. he is likely to go back to it again and again for amusement. viewed thus, the parlour run by the petitioners are places of amusement as defined under section 2(14) of the karnataka police act is not left in doubt. if they are places of amusement, they are covered by the order issued under section 31 of the police act by the commissioner of police. ; (b) licensing & controlling of places of public amusement (bangalore city) order, 1989 - section 4 - places of public resort to be known to licensing authority to maintain public order and enforce police act -requirement to obtain licence under order not arbitrary or unjustified or violative of fundamental rights - regulatory powers - reasonable restrictions & sustainable. ; section 4 requires the commissioner, the licensing authority/to get the reports or certificates whenever necessary from the executive engineer, public works department, the health officer, the officer of the electrical inspectorate and the fire officer which are 'indicative that where public have free access to the place such places must be considered to be places that must be known to the licensing authority in order to maintain public order if and when it becomes necessary and also to enforce the law, that is, the police act. viewed thus, the insistence by the circle inspector of police and the sub inspector of police that the petitioners must take out licence under the order impugned cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners and other citizens under our constitution. regulatory powers cannot be read as prohibitory. the police act and the order passed under it is law made by the legislature and any reasonable restriction by such laws must be sustained by this court and they are so sustained. ; (c) precedent - ingredients - judgment decided on facts after hearing contesting parties on issues raised - issue of notice or rule nisi not precedent. ; a simple act of issuing notice or rule nisi does not amount to creating a precedent. to be a judicial precedent understood as such, it should be a judgment of the court decided on the facts of a case giving cogent reasons, after hearing arguments of the parties contesting and raising issues before it. when that is absent, it cannot be a precedent and the mere fact that another judge of this court, had issued notice or admitted the petition does not amount to a binding precedent and the counsel should be careful when authorities are cited without realising what they are doing or the purpose of such citation. ; (d) words & phrases - amusement - section 2: [p.d. dinakaran,c.j. & v.g. sabhahit,j] writ jurisdiction - petitioner challenging demand of amount towards damage caused to government on account of illegal mining by him held, it is therefore clear that the petitioner had committed fraud by colluding with the then director of mines and geology, tahsildar, c.n. halli and deputy commissioner, tumkur district, in getting the impugned lease granted for mining operation over an extent of 96 acres of forest land without obtaining the prior approval contemplated under initiated action for assessing the damage/loss caused by the petitioner by the said illegal mining. therefore, the defence of the petitioner that he had undertaken the mining operation on the basis of the recommendation made by the authorities, cannot be sustained. w.p. dismissed.order, 1989 - section 4 - places of public resort to be known to licensing authority to maintain public order and enforce police act -requirement to obtain licence under order not arbitrary or unjustified or violative of fundamental rights - regulatory powers - reasonable restrictions & sustainable. section 4 requires the commissioner, the licensing authority/to get the reports or certificates whenever necessary from the executive engineer, public works department, the health officer, the officer of the electrical inspectorate and the fire officer which are 'indicative that where public have free access to the place such places must be considered to be places that must be known to the licensing authority in order to maintain public order if and when it becomes necessary and also to enforce the law, that is, the police act. viewed thus, the insistence by the circle inspector of policeand the sub inspector of police that the petitioners must take out licence under the order impugned cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners and other citizens under our constitution. regulatory powers cannot be read as prohibitory. the police act and the order passed under it is law made by the legislature and any reasonable restriction by such laws must be sustained by this court and they are so sustained. (c) precedent - ingredients - judgment decided on facts after hearing contesting parties on issues raised - issue of notice or rule nisi not precedent. a simple act of issuing notice or rule nisi does not amount to creating a precedent. to be a judicial precedent understood as such, it should be a judgment of the court decided on the facts of a case giving cogent reasons, after hearing arguments of the parties contesting and raising issues before it. when that is absent, it cannot be a precedent and the mere fact that another judge of this court, had issued notice or admitted the petition does not amount to a binding precedent and the counsel should be careful when authorities are cited without realising what they are doing or the purpose of such citation. (d) words & phrases - amusement

Judgment:
ORDER

, 1989 - Section 4 - Places of public resort to be known to Licensing Authority to maintain public order and enforce Police Act -Requirement to obtain Licence under Order not arbitrary or unjustified or violative of Fundamental Rights - Regulatory powers - Reasonable restrictions & sustainable.

Section 4 requires the Commissioner, the Licensing Authority/to get the reports or certificates whenever necessary from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, the Health Officer, the Officer of the Electrical Inspectorate and the Fire Officer which are 'indicative that where public have free access to the place such places must be considered to be places that must be known to the Licensing Authority in order to maintain public order if and when it becomes necessary and also to enforce the law, that is, the Police Act. Viewed thus, the insistence by the Circle Inspector of Policeand the Sub Inspector of Police that the petitioners must take out licence under the order impugned cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners and other citizens under our Constitution. Regulatory powers cannot be read as prohibitory. The Police Act and the order passed under it is law made by the Legislature and any reasonable restriction by such laws must be sustained by this Court and they are so sustained.

(C) PRECEDENT - Ingredients - Judgment decided on facts after hearing contesting parties on issues raised - Issue of notice or Rule nisi not precedent.

A simple act of issuing notice or rule nisi does not amount to creating a precedent. To be a judicial precedent understood as such, it should be a Judgment of the Court decided on the facts of a case giving cogent reasons, after hearing arguments of the parties contesting and raising issues before it. When that is absent, it cannot be a precedent and the mere fact that another Judge of this Court, had issued notice or admitted the petition does not amount to a binding precedent and the Counsel should be careful when authorities are cited without realising what they are doing or the purpose of such citation.

(D) WORDS & PHRASES - Amusement