1 wp3089.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 3089 of 2010 Mohammed Anzar ..Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents Mr. Ram B. Upadhyay i/b. Law Competere Consultus for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik – APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED :- NOVEMBER 22, 2010. P.C. The grievance in this Petition is that the premises belonging to the Petitioner being Room No. 2 in Building No. 98 A situated on the 13th Lane, Kamathipura, Mumbai has been wrongly sealed as a consequence of order passed in C.C. No. 770/PW/2008. The description of the property referred to in the said order is Building No.108, Bori Chawl, 13th Lane, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai with which the Petitioner has no concern. 2 wp3089.10.sxw 2. On the other hand, the Respondents are relying on the statement of the Petitioner which was recorded at the time of sealing of the premises. In this statement he has virtually agreed that the premises which have been sealed form part of Building No. 108 bearing Room No. 2 on the Ground Floor. 3. The argument of the Petitioner is that unless it is found that the illegal activity is committed in the premises in question, the Authority cannot proceed to seal the same in exercise of powers under Section 18 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The argument clearly overlooks that the order passed below Exhibit 1 in C.C. No. 770/PW/2008 proceeds on the finding that immoral activity of sexual exploitation in the form of prostitution was conducted in the same premises. The said order, however, is not challenged in the Writ Petition filed before us as such. The only relief claimed is to issue direction to open the seal put on the premises belonging to the Petitioner which infact was Room No. 2 in Building No. 98 A on the Ground Floor on 13th Lane, Kamathipura, Mumbai 400 008. 4. Unless the Petitioner were to substantiate the fact that the premises sealed was Room No. 2 in Building No. 98 A, the grievance made before us 3 wp3089.10.sxw cannot be taken forward. The Petitioner relies on document titled as Sale Deed Exhibit A purported to be executed in April 2009. It is not a registered document. This document is not sufficient to establish the fact that the premises sealed are infact Room No. 2 in Building No. 98 A. In absence of such material, there is no reason to overlook the material placed on record alongwith the reply affidavit in particular the statement of the Petitioner himself recorded at the time of sealing of the premises. The reply affidavit and the material placed on record by the Respondents has remained uncontroverted. 5. Going by the said material, the grievance made in this Petition is ill founded and unsubstantiated. Hence, dismissed. (A.P.BHANGALE, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)