1 2948.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2948 OF 2010 Smt.Sushila Laxman Karkunwar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Jayesh B.Kocheta i/b Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar for Petitioner. Mr.D.J.Khambatta, Addl.Solicitor General and Sr.Counsel with Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 14, 2010. P.C. 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Police Commissioner and District Magistrate, Pune City dated 5th October, 2010 in exercise of powers, under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. By the said order, the property belonging to the Petitioner before us has been ordered to be attached and the attachment would continue for a period of three years. 2. It is common ground that the Petitioner is the owner of the said premises. Further, when raid was conducted, one Urmila Tamang was found 2 2948.10.sxw in possession and occupation of the premises which were being used for improper purposes and offending the provisions of the Act of 1956. During the said raid, three minor girls were found in the premises who were under the control of said Urmila Tamang. As a result, criminal case has been registered against said Urmila Tamang under Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Act of 1956. Even the Petitioner has been named as one of the accused being accused No.4 in the said case, presumably, being owner of the premises. 3. The question is: whether the Appropriate Authority is empowered to continue the attachment or hand over the possession of the said premises to the owner thereof after evicting the occupier? Section 18 of the Act of 1956 provides for the closure of brothel and eviction of occupier from the premises. The said provision has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhansingh Gopal Chauhan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 (3) Mh.L.J.500. The principle expounded in the said decision would apply on all fours to the case of the Petitioner. Inasmuch as, it is common ground that the Petitioner is owner in respect of the disputed premises. Further, it is common ground that when raid was conducted, the person other than the Petitioner was found to be occupier of 3 2948.10.sxw the said premises and carrying on the illegal activity. The Judgment in the case of Dhansingh Gopal Chauhan (supra) plainly provided answer to that situation. However, this aspect has been completely glossed over by the Appropriate Authority. 4. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to quash and set-aside the order passed by the Police Commissioner and District Magistrate, Pune City dated 5th October, 2010 and instead, relegate the Petitioner before the said Authority for reconsideration of the matter keeping in mind the exposition of this Court in the case of Dhansingh Gopal Chauhan (supra). The Appropriate Authority shall reconsider the case and pass fresh orders as may be advised within two weeks from today. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)