The provisions of the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1933 (Bengal Act 6 of 1933) - Sections 13, 14, 15 and 17 - are not repugnant to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the production of one Panna Bai, now in the custody of the Lady Superintendent of the Government Rescue Home.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be known to the said Panna Bai. His case is that as by reason of her incarceration, the girl is unable to move this Court, he is entitled to ask for appropriate orders for her release.

( 3 ) THE first point which falls to be determined is whether or not the petitioner is competent to make this application. There can toe no doubt that the girl concerned is a minor. As to her age, the evidence of Dr. Kabir Hossain appears to be conclusive. The giri being a minor, it seems to us that ordinarily the only person competent to move the Court in habeas corpus is one who is entitled either to the custody of the child or to represent her legally. Where, however, such a person is shown to be incapable of making the application, or where no such person exists, the question of the right of a friend to make such an application may properly arise. But, in that case, it must be shown by an affidavit, firstly, that no one who is legally entitled to the custody of the child or to represent her exists, or that such a person, if any, is unable, for reasons to be set out in the affidavit, to make such an application and, secondly, that the applicant himself is interested in the welfare of the child. The present applicant, in our view, does not appear to be interested in the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration here. Indeed, the applicant's interests appear to be in conflict with the well-being of the child who was recovered from a brothel and subsequently detained at the Rescue Home under the provisions of the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1933. We would hold, therefore, that the applicant is incompetent to present this application. At the same time, we have decided to dispose of this petition on its merits as well.

( 4 ) MR. Ghose on behalf of the applicant has argued that Sections 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1933 (Bengal Act 6 of 1933) offend against Articles 91 and 22 of the Constitution and that, therefore the detention of the girl is illegal. In order to appreciate the contention put forward by Mr. Ghose, it is necessary to set out the facts leading to this application.

( 5 ) IN October last year, the girl Panna Bai was recovered by an Inspector of Police from premises No. 43/1, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, where she carried on the profession of a dancer. The house concerned was a brothel. In consequence of the recovery of the girl, the police sent up a woman named Tara Bai and one Md. Siddique for trial under Sections 8 and 10 of the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1933, on the allegation that offences punishable under the said sections had been committed by them in respect of the said child. It was in connection with that prosecution that the present applicant was summoned as a prosecution witness. The girl Panna Bai was also a witness in the said case. Acting under Section 13 of the Bengal Act, the Inspector of Police, who was responsible for the recovery of the girl, removed her from the said address in Bowbazar Street and produced her before a learned Magistrate who on 27-1-1953, made the following order:"the girl Panna Bai is examined. She says she wants to go back to Bowbazar house. Considering the evidence of Dr. K. Hossain, I am of the opinion that the age of the girl is between 16 and 17 years, nearer 17 years on 30-10-52, the date of examination. Having regard to Section 14 (2) of B. S. I. T. Act. 1933, I direct that Panna Bai be detained at the Rescue Home for 9 months more. "the girl has been at the Rescue Home since.

( 6 ) MR. Ghose's contention is that the girl's detention is neither punitive nor preventive, and is, therefore, illegal. He argues that Sections 13, 14, 15 an