The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26019 of 2007 Dated 21st June, 2010 Between: Badavat Jamuna …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Home. Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in seizing the petitioner’s premises bearing No.5-11-372, Bank Colony, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad, without following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to break open the lock of the said premises. At the hearing, there is no representation for the writ petitioners. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. On the allegation that the Writ Petitioner was using the premises in question for running a brothel house, the same was sealed and seized. This Court by interim order, dated 24-12-2007, directed removal of the seal and allowed the petitioner to continue in possession thereof. This Court, however, allowed the respondents to keep watch over the said premises pending further orders in the Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5- Tahsildar, Nizamabad District, it is inter alia stated that on 30-10-2007, the Police, on reliable information, raided the petitioner’s premises and arrested her by registering a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’); that on receipt of information from higher authorities on 03-11-2007, he along with his subordinates and Police raided the said premises; that the husband of the petitioner was informed over phone to be present at the premises, which was locked by the Police on 30-10-2007, but as he was not present, the lock was broken open in the presence of three panchas and the premises was seized under a Panchanama. It is further stated that on receipt of orders from this Court, the seal of the premises in question was removed and its possession was handed over to the petitioner. Along with the counter-affidavit, the respondents filed proceedings, dated 02-11-2007, of the Revenue Divisional Officer (FAC), Nizamabad, wherein respondent No.5 was directed to hold an enquiry into the matter and seize the premises, where prostitution is stated to have been taking place, with the help of the Police. In my opinion, the above-mentioned seizure having taken place under the provisions of the Act on the order passed by the competent authority and under a panchanama, ex facie the said seizure cannot be said to be illegal. However, as the premises was released in favour of the petitioner under the interim direction granted by this Court, it may not be appropriate to permit the respondents to take back the possession of the same in pursuance of the seizure order at this length of time. The respondents are, however, permitted to pursue the proceedings already initiated against the petitioner for fixing both civil and criminal liabilities on her. The respondents are also permitted to exercise all necessary statutory powers that are vested in them to prevent the petitioner and her aids from committing the activities falling under the provisions of the Act in future. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 24-12-2007, is vacated and WPMP.No.33936 of 2007 and WVMP.No.1140 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st June, 2010 lur