Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi, evicting the petitioners from their premises and directing closure of Hotel Shirdi Sai Inn for one year under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioners, owners of the premises, challenged this order through a criminal writ petition. The background involved an FIR registered on 21.12.2023 under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the Act, alleging operation of a prostitution racket under the guise of a spa centre at the hotel. After investigation, a proposal was submitted to the Collector, leading to notices issued to the petitioners, who failed to respond, resulting in the impugned order. The legal issues centered on whether the order violated principles of natural justice, was based on sufficient evidence of a Section 7 violation, and required prior conviction under Sections 3 or 7. The petitioners argued that they were denied a hearing due to medical absence, that no cogent evidence proved the premises were within 200 meters of a public place as per Section 7, and that closure under Section 18 necessitates conviction, citing a precedent. The State countered that multiple notices were served and acknowledged, the police report provided adequate evidence, and conviction is only required for Section 18(2), not Section 18(1). The court analyzed the record, finding that notices were duly served and petitioners failed to respond, thus natural justice was complied with. It held that the detailed police report sufficed as evidence for the authority's satisfaction under Section 18(1), and clarified that the conviction requirement applies to Section 18(2), not the impugned order under Section 18(1). Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction and closure order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Compliance with Principles - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Section 18 - Petitioners contended that the eviction order was passed without following natural justice as they were out of station for medical treatment and could not file their say - Court found that multiple notices were served on petitioners, with acknowledgments submitted, and they failed to respond despite opportunities, thus principles were complied with - Held that the contention was baseless and rejected (Paras 13). B) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic Prevention - Closure of Premises - Standard of Proof - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Sections 7, 18 - Petitioners argued that action under Section 18(1) requires violation of Section 7 and the competent authority lacked cogent evidence, especially regarding premises being within 200 meters of a public place - Court noted that a detailed police report based on FIR registration under the Act was submitted, providing sufficient basis for the authority's satisfaction - Held that the impugned order was not passed without evidence (Paras 14). C) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic Prevention - Eviction and Closure - Conviction Requirement - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Sections 3, 7, 18 - Petitioners relied on a precedent to argue that closure under Section 18 requires conviction under Section 3 or 7, and since the crime was pending, the order was invalid - Court clarified that conviction is a requirement for action under Section 18(2), not Section 18(1), under which the impugned order was passed - Held that the argument was misconceived as the order was under Section 18(1) (Paras 15).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi, under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, for eviction and closure of premises is legally sustainable.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi, under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
