IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15954 of 2010 Between: Smt.Garuvugari Jayalakshmi ... PETITIONER a n d The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.Garuvugari Jayalakshmi with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing and sealing the petitioner’s property bearing flat No.202, bearing H.No.7-1-77/RE/202, Rajyalakshmi Apartments, D.K. Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 2. The petitioner is the owner of the flat bearing No.202, bearing H.No.7-1-77/RE/202, Rajyalakshmi Apartments, D.K. Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 12-01-206 from K. Sudershan Reddy. She is residing in U.S.A. and as such, her father is looking after the maintenance of the flat owned by her. One K. Ravi Kumar approached her father for running of mess in Hitech City. Believing the version of K. Ravi Kumar, her father let out the premises on monthly rent. When the father of the petitioner came to know that a case in Crime No.588 of 2010, dated 26-05- 2010 came to be registered against K. Ravi Kumar, he got the tenant (K. Ravi Kumar) vacated the premises. At that stage, respondent No.4 came to the flat on 15-06-2010 and issued a notice purported be one under Section 18 of the Act and seized the flat. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without following the due procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, notice dated 15-06-2010 impugned in the writ petition came to be issued. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not put on notice before ordering for seizure of the premises under Section 18 of the Act. Learned counsel took me to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. 5. Section 18 of the Act contemplates issuance of notice to the occupier calling for his explanation within seven (7) days. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 18 of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “18. Closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises – (1) A magistrate may, on receipt of information from the police or otherwise, that any house, room place or any portion thereof within a distance of (two hundred meters) of any public place referred to in sub- section (1) of section 7, is being run or used as a brothel by any person or is being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade, issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord of such house, room, place or portion or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord or on the tenant, lessee, occupier of, or any other person incharge of such house, room, place, or portion, to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice why the same should not be attached for improper user thereof; and if, after hearing the person concerned, the magistrate is satisfied that the house, room place or portion is being used as a brothel or for carrying on prostitution, then the magistrate may pass orders- (a) directing eviction of the occupier within seven days of the passing of the order from the house, room, place or portion; (b) directing that before letting it out during the period of one year (or in a case where a child or minor has been found in such house, room, place or portion during a search under Section 15, during the period of three years,) immediately after the passing of the order, the owner, lessor or landlord or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord shall obtain the previous approval of the magistrate: Provided that, if the magistrate finds that the owner, lessor or landlord as well as the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord, was innocent of the improper user of the house, room, place or portion, he may cause the same to be restored to the owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord, with a direction that the house, room, place or portion shall not be leased out, or otherwise given possession of, to or for the benefit of the person who was allowing the improper user therein. (2) A court convicting a person of any offence under Section 3 or section 7 may pass order under sub-section (1) without further notice to such person to show cause as required in that sub-section. (3) Orders passed by the magistrate or court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be subject to appeal and shall not be stayed or set aside by the order of any court, civil or criminal and the said orders shall cease to have validity after the (expiry of one year or three years, as the case may be): Provided that where a conviction under Section 3 or section 7 is set aside on appeal on the ground that such house, room, place or any portion thereof is not being run or used as a brothel or is not being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade, any order passed by the trial court under sub-section (1) shall also be set aside. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, when a magistrate passes an order under sub-section (1), or a court passes an order under sub-section (2), any lease or agreement under which the house, room, place or portion is occupied at the time shall become void and inoperative. (5) When an owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord fails to comply with a direction given under clause (b) of sub-section (1) he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or when he fails to comply with a direction under the proviso to that sub-section, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 7, as the case may be, and punished accordingly.” 6. A plain reading of the above referred Section indicates that owner of the premises is required to put on notice before ordering closure of the premises. There being no show cause notice prior to the closure of the premises, the notice impugned dated 15-06-2010 in the writ petition cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed quashing notice dated 15-06-2010 reserving liberty to the respondents to follow the due process of law in the event of the premises owned by the petitioner is required to be closed under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Respondent No.4 is directed to hand over the keys of the premises to the petitioner. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 07, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15954 of 2010 July 07, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.PN