Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. J.
Sheohar Sanjay Prasad —Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar through the Principal
Secretary & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.386 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2019
Decided on 22.1.2021
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956—Section 18—Constitution of India—Article 226—Sealing of hotel for indulging in prostitution in hotel—Power conferred upon Magistrate under Section 18(1) of Act of 1956 is not dependent upon outcome of trial of main case—SDM has proceeded to exercise his power conferred under Section 18(1) of Act of 1956 and directed petitioner to vacate premises within a period of 7 days—Since petitioner failed to comply with order impugned, consequential action of sealing of premises has been taken—SDM was not required to wait for final conclusion of trial before exercising his power under Section 18(1) of Act of 1956—Since, SDM has acted well within powers conferred upon him under Section 18(1) (a) of Act of 1956, impugned orders are not required to be interfered with on ground of lack of authority/power upon SDM—Proceeding initiated under Section 18 is in nature of a summary proceeding—Principles of natural justice has been complied with before passing of impugned order—No illegality or infirmity may be found with the same on this score—In extraordinary writ jurisdiction while considering impugned order for purpose of issuance of a writ of certiorari, this Court would not act as a court of appeal—Writ application dismissed. (Paras 12, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30)
Result: Writ Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This writ application has been preferred invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order as contained in memo no.404 dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheohar (respondent no.3) as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.06.2020 by which the ‘Family Hotel and Restaurant’ belonging to the petitioner has been sealed by the Executive Magistrate and the officer in-charge of Sheohar police station in compliance of the order passed by respondent no.3.
Brief Facts of the Case
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running his hotel business in the name and style ‘Family Hotel and Restaurant’. It is a small eight room hotel and is registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act. The hotel is said to be the only source of livelihood of the petitioner.
3. It is stated that on 17.10.2019 the local police conducted a raid in the hotel and arrested one female and a male and also the petitioner on the allegation that prostitution was going on in the hotel. One F.I.R. (Annexure-2) has been lodged. On going through the F.I.R. it would appear that the female allegedly disclosed the informant police officer that at the instance of the petitioner she had agreed to establish physical relationship with the customer of the hotel on payment of Rs. 1000/-. On the said date also she was called on her mobile at 6.00 am by one staff of the hotel and on his call she had gone to room no.4. She allegedly accepted that she had established physical relationship with the customer.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 18.10.2019 the said female/lady was presented before the learned Magistrate who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The lady is said to have stated that she was an Patna High Court CR. WJC No.386 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021 3/23 employee of the hotel and was engaged in cleaning work on payment of Rs. 1200/- per month.
5. The petitioner states that on 21.10.2019 he received a notice from the office of respondent no.3 to show cause as to why his premises be not sealed. A copy of the notice has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ application from which it appears that the said notice has been issued by the respondent no.3 proposing to exercise his power under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’). Petitioner submitted his reply but respondent no.3 passed the impugned order (Annexure-5) by which the petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises within seven days and directed the Superintendent of Police, Sheohar (respondent no.4) to seal the premises and submit a report.
6. It is the submission of the petitioner that he thought that there was no substance in the matter and for that reason he kept silence, but suddenly on 28.06.2020 the police sealed the premises of the petitioner. A copy of the sealing report dated 28.06.2020 has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ application.
7. Mr. Ansul, learned counsel for the petitioner has Patna High Court CR. WJC No.386 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021 4/23 submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not have proceeded under Section 18 (1) of the Act of 1956 during pendency of the prosecution under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act of 1956. It is his submission, thus that the impugned actions are violative of right to life and the petitioner is being deprived of his fundamental right to earn his livelihood. According to him, the impugned order is fit to be interfered with on the touchstone of the Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. In course of argument, Mr. Ansul has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri A.C. Aggrawal & Ors. Vs. Mst. Ramkali reported in AIR 1968 Page 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ramkali-2). He has submitted that because the impugned order has been passed by respondent no.3 before conclu
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
