Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the High Court at Hyderabad, comprising Chief Justice TBN Radhakrishnan and Justice V Ramasubramanian, on Thursday heard in part the matter pertaining to the legality of online rummy. The bench was dealing with a batch of writ pleas filed by organisers like Junglee Games India Private Limited, Play Games 24*7 Private Limited and Head Infotech (India) Private Limited, companies from Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad which challenged the ordinance issued by the government in bringing ‘online rummy’ game under the Gaming Act by amending provisions of Telangana Gaming Act, 1974. The state government had issued the ordinance on June 17, 2017, prohibiting online rummy. Senior Counsel CV Mohan Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out the various Supreme Court judgements where rummy was held to be a game of skill and not just a game of chance. He said as per the Supreme Court, online rummy (which is also rummy but played online) should be considered a game of skill. Supreme Court Senior Advocate Harin Raval, appearing for Telangana State, said as per the amended provisions of the Telangana Gaming Act, section 2 (a) brings under its ambit cyberspace as one of the gaming houses which deals with games of chance. The counsel for the petitioner said there was no betting or gambling taking place in online rummy which was denied by the State. The counsel for the State pointed out that there was a growing addiction for online rummy, particularly among the youngsters, which was causing financial problems in families. The bench will hear the matter August 21.
Plea against Bharat Scouts & Guides termination order
Justice M Ganga Rao of the High Court on Thursday heard in part two writ pleas filed by 50 ex-employees of Bharat Scouts and Guides challenging large-scale termination by Bharat Scouts and Guides. Senior Counsel S Ramachandra Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted to the Court that in 2003 Bharat Scouts and Guides had regularised the sanctioned posts and later in 2014 terminated them. The Counsel submitted that large-scale termination of the employees was intimated through a newspaper and no notice was served to the employees facing the termination, which is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. He also pointed out that although the government alleged that these were irregular appointments, it did not furnish any grounds for the irregularities.