{"id":221274,"date":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002"},"modified":"2016-10-20T02:03:41","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T20:33:41","slug":"dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 01\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nWrit Petition No.24687 of 2002\n\n\nDharapuram Recreation Club\nrep. by its President\nD.Rathinaswamy.\nDharapuram\nErode District.                 ..              Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Superintendent of Police,\n   Erode District,\n   Erode.\n\n2. The Deputy Superintendent of\n     Police, Dharapuram,\n   Erode District.\n\n3. The Inspector of Police,\n   Kundadam Police Station,\n   Erode District.                      ..              Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying\nto issue a Writ of Mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :       Mr.K.Mohan Ram\n\nFor respondents:       Mr.S.Venkatesh, A.G.P.\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   Writ  Petition  praying  to  issue  a  Writ  of  Mandamus<br \/>\nforbearing the respondents herein and their subordinate officials from in  any<br \/>\nmanner  interfering  with  the rights of the members of the petitioner Club to<br \/>\nplay the game of rummy with stakes and other indoor games in the  premises  of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  Club  at  No.5\/157,  Pollachi  Dharapurm  Road, Chandrapuram,<br \/>\nMunduvelampatti Village, Poolavadi 642 206, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  In the affidavit filed in support of  the  writ  petition,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  would give the details regarding the existence of their club,<br \/>\nits objectives, its membership and the games played therein  with  a  sporting<br \/>\ninterest  and  some  members  of  the  club play games of bridge and rummy, in<br \/>\naccordance with the  memorandum  and  bylaws  framed  with  the  Registrar  of<br \/>\nSocieties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The petitioner club would further submit that the troubles<br \/>\ngiven  to  their  club  activities  by  the  third  respondent  leading to the<br \/>\npetitioner to file a writ petition in W.P.  No.4870 of 2002  praying  for  the<br \/>\nsimilar  relief  extracted  supra  and  this  Court  also  passed its order on<br \/>\n19.2.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The petitioner would further submit  that  the  petitioner<br \/>\nClub,  without  violating  the  statutory  provisions, is carrying on with its<br \/>\nactivities and that the respondents have no manner of any right  to  interfere<br \/>\nwith  such  of  the  legal rights of the petitioner Club; that in spite of the<br \/>\norder dated 19.2.2002, the third respondent has  inspected  the  Club  several<br \/>\ntimes  only  to  find  no illegal activity or gambling taking place within the<br \/>\nclub premises and the second respondent also started insisting the  petitioner<br \/>\nto remove the sign board of the club and that the club should be closed and in<br \/>\nspite of proper explanation offered by the petitioner Club, ignoring the same,<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent  has instructed the third respondent to issue a notice<br \/>\ndated 21.3.2002 to the petitioner club making a mention of the order  of  this<br \/>\ncourt and stating that the petitioner is misusing the orders of this Court and<br \/>\nconducting  gambling  in  the  club  premises and instructed the petitioner to<br \/>\nclose down the club; that the petitioner, on receipt of the said notice,  sent<br \/>\na  detailed  reply  to  the  respondents  on 22.3 .2002, but still, the threat<br \/>\ncontinues; that other legal notices have also been served on  the  respondents<br \/>\nby  the  petitioner  club,  and therefore, terming that such activities of the<br \/>\nrespondents amount to contempt of court, would ultimately pray to  the  relief<br \/>\nextracted supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner Club, besides citing Section 5 of the Gambling Act  and  the<br \/>\nnotice  issued  by the third respondent, would submit that the contents of the<br \/>\nnotice dated 21.3.2002 are to the effect that getting an order from  the  High<br \/>\nCourt  for  playing rummy, the members of the petitioner Club are indulging in<br \/>\ngambling and there are sufficient reasons for initiating legal action  against<br \/>\nthem,  and therefore the notice directs the petitioner to close down the club,<br \/>\nimmediately after the receipt of the said notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  The learned counsel would cite  an  order  of  this  Court<br \/>\ndelivered in  Sundaram  VS.  The State by the Sub-Inspector of Police reported<br \/>\nin 1983 L.W.  (Crl.) 183, wherein it is held therein:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The running of a common gaming house is a primordial requisite before<br \/>\nanyone can be convicted under Sections 8  or  9  of  the  Madras  Gaming  Act.<br \/>\nBeforeever a person can be convicted under Section 8 or under Section 9, there<br \/>\nmust  be  proof  that  a common gaming house was being run by someone and that<br \/>\nsuch place was being made use of for gaming activities.  In the instant  case,<br \/>\nthere  is  absolutely  no mention in the report about anybody running a common<br \/>\ngaming house.  All that is stated is that the 10th petitioner  (watchman)  had<br \/>\npermitted  the  other  petitioners  to  play cards&#8217; games inside the premises.<br \/>\nThere is absolutely no mention about the 10th petitioner permitting the use of<br \/>\nthe premises for gaming activities with a view to derive profit  or  gain  for<br \/>\nhimself.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;In  this case, in spite of the legal position being well settled, the<br \/>\npolice authorities, particularly the lower  strata  of  Officers  seem  to  be<br \/>\ncompletely unaware  of  the  provisions of law.  It is not known whether their<br \/>\nignorance of the correct legal position  is  on  account  of  lack  of  proper<br \/>\ninstructions or due to a wanton attitude to flout the law.  On this one ground<br \/>\nalone,  the  proceedings pending before the Court below deserve to be quashed.<br \/>\nThere was no urgency in the matter, and the Sub Inspector could have very well<br \/>\nobtained a search warrant and then proceeded to the premises to make a  search<br \/>\nof it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Yet  another  order  would  also  be  cited  by the learned counsel, which was<br \/>\ndelivered by a single Judge of this Court in W.Ps.  Nos.14239 and  1  4240  of<br \/>\n2002 dated 29.4.2002, wherein the learned Judge has evolved certain principles<br \/>\nand issued directions to the respondents therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   In  consideration  of the facts pleaded, having regard to<br \/>\nthe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  and  the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) as well, it<br \/>\ncomes to be known that in spite of certain directions having  been  issued  by<br \/>\nthis Court in the earlier order made in W.P.  No.4870 of 2002 dated 19.2.2002,<br \/>\nthe petitioner, citing a letter addressed to its Club by the third respondent,<\/p>\n<p>the  Inspector  of  Police, and alleging that it is violative of the rights of<br \/>\nthe petitioner Club to have their  club  activities,  and  therefore,  seeking<br \/>\nfurther directions, has come forward to file the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   In  the  notice  dated  21.3.2002  issued  by  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent to the petitioner Club, it is generally alleged that in the name of<br \/>\nplaying rummy, the petitioner club is carrying on  gambling  within  the  club<br \/>\npremises,  and therefore, advising the club authorities to close down the club<br \/>\nactivities, the said notice has been issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Though the order of this Court passed earlier  gives  the<br \/>\noutline  of the code of conduct of the club activities as well as the ambit of<br \/>\nexercising jurisdiction by the respondents, still, in practice,  whether  some<br \/>\nor  any  of  the  activities  of the members of the petitioner club within the<br \/>\npremises, is actionable by the respondents or not, is to be decided  from  the<br \/>\nparticular and  specific  acts  being perpetrated by the club.  But the notice<br \/>\nissued by the third respondent is in a generalised  manner  stating  that  the<br \/>\nactivities  being  carried on, particularly, the game played is not rummy, but<br \/>\ngambling, which is within the prohibitive degree, and therefore, would  advise<br \/>\nthe petitioner  to close down the club activities, as a whole.  No law permits<br \/>\nthe respondents to pass  an  order  of  such  nature  advising  to  close  the<br \/>\nactivities  of  the  club  as  a  whole  especially when it is licenced by the<br \/>\nlicensing authorities in exercise of their legal powers.  What the respondents<br \/>\nare empowered by law is that in case of any specific act takes  place  in  the<br \/>\nclub  which  is  violative of the criminal laws, prosecution could be launched<br \/>\nand the respondents cannot dictate terms to  the  petitioner  club  either  to<br \/>\nclose  the  club  or  to  prevent  them  from  having their daily routine club<br \/>\nactivities.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  However, in the second order cited by the learned counsel<br \/>\nextracted supra from W.P.  Nos.14239 and 14240 of 2002 dated 29.4.2002,  since<br \/>\nit  gives  more  clarity  as  to the rights of the parties such as that of the<br \/>\npetitioner and the respondents, adopting the same, this Court is  inclined  to<br \/>\npass the following order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In  result,  the above writ petition is disposed of with the following<br \/>\ndirections:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i) So long as the petitioner club or their members  carry  on  lawful<br \/>\nactivities, the  respondents shall not interfere.  However, if the respondents<br \/>\nhave specific information or bona fide suspect that the activities carried  on<br \/>\nby  the  petitioner  club  or  their  members  are  not in accordance with the<br \/>\nstatutory provisions, or the respondents have reason to believe that there  is<br \/>\na  violation of the provisions of the Gaming Act or any other enactment, it is<br \/>\nwell open to the respondents or their subordinates  to  enter  the  petitioner<br \/>\nclub  premises,  conduct investigation, question those who involved themselves<br \/>\nin such activities and take appropriate action.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii) It is  open  to  the  petitioners  or  their  members  to  defend<br \/>\nthemselves  in case of any prosecution levelled and it is equally open to them<br \/>\nto challenge the action of the respondents if it is  not  in  accordance  with<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii)  The respondents or their subordinates or their men shall not be<br \/>\nentitled to enter into the club premises or question  the  office  bearers  or<br \/>\nother  members  of the club, so long as the club members confine their club to<br \/>\nlawful activities as is permissible in law  and  if  specific  information  is<br \/>\nreceived, after recording the same in the Station Records, the respondents may<br \/>\nenter,  investigate,  question  the  members, proceed further according to the<br \/>\ngravity of the offence or the violation detected, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n<p>                However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall  be  no<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>gs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\nErode District,<br \/>\nErode.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Deputy Superintendent of<br \/>\nPolice, Dharapuram,<br \/>\nErode District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nKundadam Police Station,<br \/>\nErode District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ Writ Petition No.24687 of 2002 Dharapuram Recreation Club rep. by its President D.Rathinaswamy. Dharapuram Erode District. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Superintendent of Police, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-19T20:33:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T20:33:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1556,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T20:33:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-19T20:33:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T20:33:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002"},"wordCount":1556,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002","name":"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T20:33:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharapuram-recreation-club-vs-the-superintendent-of-police-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharapuram Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}