Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 625 of 1958, decided on 30th July 1958, under Article 170 of the Constitution.
Art. 170‑Writ Petition not disclosing any right to complain against respondent‑Incompetent.
Where the Secretary of a private Institute refused to allow A to exhibit his "Dart Game" at the Institute, in view of a copy, endorsed to him, of a memorandum, addressed by the Senior Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, on the subject of "Dart" and similar games sought to be displayed by members of the public and A preferred a writ petition to the High Court impleading not the Secretary but only the Senior Superintendent of Police as respondent, and praying that the respondent be restrained from enforcing his "order" and from interfering with the "lawful business" of "Dart Game".
Held, that the fact that the Secretary had mentioned the act of the Senior Superintendent of Police as a reason for his refusal to allow the petitioner to exhibit his "Dart Game" at the Institute did not give the petitioner any right of complaint against the Senior Superintendent of Police.
The opinion of the Senior Superintendent of Police was not an "order", but even if it were an order, it was not addressed to the petitioner; and it was open to the Secretary to ignore, it, if it was, as contended by the petitioner, illegal.
The petition was dismissed.
A. R. Sheikh for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 30th July 1958.
‑The petitioner had been in the past exhibiting "Dart Game" in the premises of Griffin Institute, Lahore, on payment, it is stated by his counsel, of Rs. 400 a year. On the 9th of June 1958 when the petitioner had no lease or licence for exhibiting the game in the Institute and in fact was not doing so, he applied to the Secretary of the Institute to permit him "to re‑start the skill game at your Institute". On the 13th of June 1958, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore, endorsed a copy of his memorandum to the District Magistrate, Lahore, to the Secretary of the Institute. This runs :‑
"Some organisers of clubs of Variety Shows apply for the permission to display skill games, but, do not give its detail as to what actually they intend to exhibit. Under section 18 of the Public Gambling Act, games of skill are exempted, but, Dart Game or shooting of the arrows at the fixed target or a ring game falls within the purview of gambling, as upheld by the High Court vide 36 Criminal Law Journal, page 60.
It is requested that no permission for skill game should be allowed and the organisers should be asked to furnish its details.
No betting of money can be allowed on these games".
The next day, i.e. on the 14th of June, the Secretary wrote the following order on the petitioner's application of the 9th June :‑
"Sorry. This cannot be allowed in view of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore's order issued vide‑his letter dated the 13th June 1958".
The petitioner has now come to this Court invoking its juris diction under Art. 170 of the Constitution against the "order" of the Senior Superintendent of Police of the 13th June 1958. Only the Senior Superintendent of Police‑‑and not the Secretary of the Griffin Institute‑has been impleaded as the respondent. The praye runs as follows ;‑
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be issued to the respondent to forbear the enforcement of his order dated 13‑6‑1958 and not to interfere in any manner in the lawful business of Dart Game carried on by the petitioner in the District of Lahore".
It is contended by the petitioner's learned counsel that the "order" of the Senior Superintendent of Police offends against Article 12 of the Constitution, as it interferes with his right to carry on his lawful business. The petition is misconceived. In the first place, the so‑called order of the 13th June is no order at all. It is only a memorandum addressed to the District Magistrate, recommending that permission for "skill game" should not be allowed without organisers thereof being "asked to furnish its details". It is not alleged that either the petitioner or the Institute ever applied to the Deputy Commissioner for permission for the dart game being exhibited by the petitioner in the Institute. Therefore, the petitioner can have no grievance, because the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police was not enforced, or an order passed, by the District Magistrate against him.
No cause for grievance or action can arise to the petitioner on account of the refusal of the Secretary of the Institute to permit him to exhibit the dart game in the Institute premises. 'The petitioner had no legal right to do so ; and it was tip to the Secre tary to refuse him permission for any reason, or without assigning any reason. The fact that the Secretary has mentioned the act' of a third party as a reason for his refusal cannot give the peti tioner any right of complaint against the third party. It seems that the Secretary had erroneously taken the memorandum of the 13th of June as an order ; but even if it were an order, it was not addressed to the petitioner ; and it was open to the Secretary to ignore it if it was, as contended by the petitioner, illegal.
The petition is dismissed.
A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer