Section 18(1) of the Act, as amended, is preventive in nature, independent of punitive provisions, and aims to regulate sanctity of residential units in public places.

G.ROHINI, J.

1. This writ petition is filed praying inter alia to declare Section 18 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short =the Act‘) as void, unconstitutional and ultra vires and further to quash the four orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paharganj, Delhi dated 21.07.2012 passed under Section 18 of the Act in respect of four premises, viz., (i) Kotha No.56, 2nd Floor; ii) Kotha No.42, 2nd Floor; iii) Kotha No.59, 2nd Floor & (iv) Kotha No.5211, 1st Floor of G.B. Road, Delhi.

2. The impugned orders dated 21.07.2012 are identical and a perusal of the same shows that the Station House Officer (SHO), Kamla Market filed applications dated 10.05.2012 and 14.05.2012 under Section 18(1) of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paharganj, Delhi seeking closure of the four kothas mentioned above. It was alleged by the SHO that on study of the cases of the last three years registered under various Sections of the Act, it was found that several FIRs were registered with respect to the premises in question. The particulars of the said FIRs were also furnished by SHO. Pursuant thereto, the SDM issued notices dated 13.06.2012 to the owner/Manager of the premises in question calling upon to show cause as to why the same should not be attached for improper use and as to why action should not be taken for their eviction from the said premises. In response to the same, one Smt.Shamshad, claiming to be the owner/Manager of Kotha No.56 appeared before the learned SDM on 20.06.2012. So far as Kotha Nos.42, 59 & 5211 are concerned, Smt. Sujata, Smt.Sunita Devi and Smt.Baby had appeared before SDM claiming that they are the lessees of the respective premises. On a request made by them, the copies of the documents filed by SHO along with his applications under Section 18(1) of the Act were furnished and on 30.06.2012 replies were filed by them through their counsel. On 16.07.2012, the learned SDM heard them as well as the Government counsel appeared for the SHO. Thereafter, the impugned orders dated 21.07.2012 came to be passed by the learned SDM holding that the premises in question, which are within the distance of 200 meters of a school, are being used as brothel and therefore, the same require closure and eviction of the occupants in terms of Section 18(1) of the Act within seven days. There was also a direction that the owner/lessor/landlord or the agent of the owner/lessor/landlord will not let out the premises without the prior approval of SDM within three years of the said orders.

3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioners, four in number, are the occupants/residents of the premises in question and that they are mostly engaged in the profession of singing and dancing called =mujra‘, which is traditional art form practiced by the courtesans in North India since centuries. It is further pleaded that though the petitioners also engage in transactional sex, i.e. sex for money, none of them carry out prostitution as defined under the Act. It is also stated that the present petition is filed in a representative capacity representing the other residents of each of the kothas in question.

4. The impugned orders of SDM dated 21.07.2012 are assailed in the petition primarily on the ground that the said orders were passed without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have also questioned the vires of Section 18(1) of the Act contending that the said provision which empowers SDM to pass a blanket order of eviction of all the occupants of the premises irrespective of their involvement in the improper use is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that Section 18(1) allows the Police to exercise unguided power and discretion to pick and choose persons and take action either under sub-Section (1) of Section 18 or to in