HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER

Heard Mr. Kishore Baldwa, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and also learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings No.C/8059/2024, dated 24.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner of house bearing No.4-92, situated opposite LIC Office, Janmabhumi Nagar, Mancherial, hereinafter referred to as ‘subject house’. It was let out to one Mr. Ramoju Karunakar, by way of executing a lease deed dated 01.06.2024 for the purpose of running a lodge and guest house. The lease is for a period of two (02) years. In the said lease deed, there is a specific mention that Lessee cannot use the subject house for unlawful activity.

4. It is further contended that a case in Crime No.538 of 2024 was registered against the said lessee and other accused by Mancherial Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections - 143 (1) (d) and 143 (1) (f) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections - 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘ITP Act’). Lessee is arraigned as accused No.8. The allegation levelled against them in the said complaint dated 21.08.2024 of Mancherial Town Police Station is that the accused are using the subject house as a brothel house.

5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused therein and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.496 of 2024 against the lessee of the subject house and others for the aforesaid offences.

6. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 has issued a show-cause notice dated 10.10.2024 directing the petitioner herein to submit explanation. He has submitted explanation dated 15.10.2024 by duly enclosing a copy of the said lease deed informing respondent No.2 that he has let out the subject house to accused No.8 and there is a specific clause in the said lease deed that lessee cannot use the subject house for any unlawful activity. It is further stated that on coming to know about the said illegal activities, the petitioner has already terminated the said lease in terms of the said lease deed.

Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned proceedings dated 24.10.2024, respondent No.2 seized the subject house in terms of Section - 18 (1) (a) of ITP Act. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that respondent No.2 has no power to seize the subject house in terms of Section - 18 (1) (a) of ITP Act and he has not assigned any reasons in the impugned order while seizing the subject house.

7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Revenue and Home, on instructions, would submit that the accused in the said crime used the subject house as brothel house, which is in violation of the ITP Act. Therefore, the subject house was seized by respondent No.2 by following the procedure laid down under Section -

18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act. There is no irregularity in it.

8. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Section - 18 of the ITP Act deals with ‘closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises’ and the same is extracted as under:

“18. 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 two hundred metres 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 on 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