Failure to follow proper legal procedure in sealing premises under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956 necessitates de-sealing.

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P.No.9951 of 2024 R.S.Badrappan .. Petitioner /versus/

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore 641 018.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the seal and open the building bearing Door No.1, situated at Gandhi Maidanam, Ooty Main Road, Mettupalayam 641 301.

For Petitioner :Mr.Babu Rangasamy for Mr.Babu Rangasamy Associates For Respondents :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R The petitioner herein is the owner of the building at Mariamman Koil Street, Mettupalayam Town, Ooty Main Road. For using the premises for immoral traffic of a women the premises been locked by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 31.01.2024. The petitioner has given a representation to de-seal the premises on the ground that he has let out the premises to one M/s Indus Towers to erect cellphone tower and also entered into a lease agreement with one Rajaduri to run a lodge in the name of A.V. Lodge. The said Rajadurai appears to have misused the premises for illegal act and therefore, the case has been registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a) , 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act) , 1956 by the Mettupalayam Police Station in Crime No.79 of 2024. The said act of the lease is without the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, seeking to de-seal the premises and permission to have access to the building to maintain the tower, he gave a representation to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, on 04.03.2024, but till date, he has not taken any action on his representation. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the company, which has taken lease to erect the cellphone tower had independently approached this Court seeking permission to maintain the tower and the order has been passed in a separate proceedings on 24.05.2024. Whereas the alleged premises is yet to be de-sealed. The order passed by the District Revenue Officer is without power and control to the procedure contemplated under the Act. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the premises been sealed to prevent further issues of illegal act in the premises. In the said premises, similar activity was carried on in the year, 2022 and a case was registered in Crime No.747 of 2022. Despite that the petitioner herein is the owner of the building, he has not controlled misusing of the premises by the leasee, which has led to subsequent complaint in crime No.79 of 2024.

4. Under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act) , 1956, the Executive Magistrate has power to close the premises, where brothel is running and evict the offenders from the premises.

5. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the closure of the premises was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 18, but even without notice it was locked and not been de-sealed for the past four months. of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act) 1956, though empowers the Executive Magistrate to close the place used for brothel or used by prostitutes for carrying on the trade, it should be done in the manner known to law. Before ordering closure of the premises, the agent of the owner, lessor or landlord or the occupier of the premises ought to have been served show cause notice to reply within 7 days, why the property should not be attached or closed and also, on satisfaction, allow the owner to let out the premises, but after intimation and permission of the revenue authorities.

6. In this case, this Court finds that sealing of the premises was done witho