Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with the lawful functioning of the petitioner's club, or the rights of its members to avail the facilities provided to them by the club, without any complaint and without following the due process of law.
3. It is stated that the petitioner club has been registered, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, with S.No.95/96. The petitioner club has been established for the purpose of rendering service to the people and to promote the physical fitness and mental satisfaction amongst the members of the club and to encourage various sports activities.
4. The petitioner has further stated that no illegal activities are carried on in the petitioner club. Only games like tennis, table tennis, carom, chess and cards are being played in the petitioner club. However, the respondents have been visiting the petitioner club to make enquiries, disturbing the normal activities of the club, without following procedures prescribed by law.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fifth respondent the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents are not interfering with the normal activities of the club. They had only made certain enquiries, based on the complaints received from various persons, with regard to the alleged illegal activities being carried on in the petitioner club.
7. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had admitted that the respondents have the power to make such enquiries, if they are in receipt of relevant and correct information about any illegal activity that may be taking place in the petitioner club.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage, since no specific instances of such interference by the respondents have been pointed out. There is no doubt that the respondents cannot interfere with the legally permissible activities of the petitioner club. In fact,
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India provides necessary protection to a person to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, which are not prohibited, under Clause 6 of
Article 19. However, it cannot be said that the respondents will have no power to interfere with the illegal activities carried on in the petitioner club. Therefore, a fine balance has to be maintained between the conflicting interests of private individuals and public authorities for a healthy development of the society. However, in the present case the petitioner has only made vague and general allegations against the respondents, without sufficient proof to substantiate such allegations. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. However, if the respondents are interfering with the legal activities of the club, then it would be open to the petitioner to take necessary action against the respondents, in the manner known to law. No costs.
csh To
1. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore.
2.The Inspector General Of Police, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Theni, Theni District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.