THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14784 of 2010 Date: 28.6.2010 Between: Amarjeet Singh, Balkampet Hyderabad. ………...Petitioner. And The State of Andrha Pradesh, Rep by its Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others. …… Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14784 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by one Amarjeet Singh, assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of flat bearing No.B-102, I Floor, United Avenue Apartments, 7-1-29/NE/B-102, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to be the registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney Holder with possession in respect of Flat No.B-102, bearing Municipal No.7-1-29/NE/B-102, First Floor, United Avenue Apartments, admeasuring about 855 Square Feet at Ameerpet, Hyderabad under a registered document, dated 22.11.2004. The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbag booked a case against one Gopal and his associates under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 vide FIR No.451/2010, dated 24.4.2010. According to the petitioner, he never let out the premises to the Gopal. After coming to know of the registration of a crime, the said Gopal vacated the premises. Thereafter, on 14.6.2010, he let out the premises to Kishore, U.V., Director of Macher Techno Consultants, who had come from Visakhapatnam. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are contemplating to seize the premises on the ground that the accused in crime No.540 of 2010 resided in the said flat, without following due process of law. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in case the premises is required to be closed, the concerned authorities have to follow procedure laid down in Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, but without following the procedure contemplated therein, the respondents are contemplating to seize the premises. I deem it appropriate to refer Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. “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 [1][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 or 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 [2][, 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, 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 as 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 aid orders shall cease to have validity after the [3][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.” A plain reading of the above referred Section shows that the owner of the premises is required to be put on notice before any action is taken for seizure of such premises. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated in Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, in case the premises owned by the petitioner is required to be seized. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:28.6.2010 Note: Furnish CC within three days. B/O mrb [1] Subs. by Act 46 of 1978, sec. 13, for “two hundred yards” (w.e.f. 2-10-1979) [2] Ins. by Act 44 of 1986, sec. 20 (w.e.f. 26-1-1987) [3] Subs. by Act 44 of 1986, sec. 20, for “expiry of one year” (w.e.f. 26-1-1987)