ANUP GANPAT GONDKAR ALIAS ANUP RAJENDRA GONDKAR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Distinction Between Magistrate's Preventive Powers Under Section 18(1) and Court's Punitive Powers Under Section 18(2) of PITA Act; Conviction Not Mandatory for Eviction and Closure Orders.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:11692
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227; Principles of Natural Justice; Doctrine of Precedent
- Facts: The Petitioners, owners of Hotel Shirdi Sai Inn, challenged an eviction and closure order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi. The order was based on an FIR registered following a police raid where a "Spa Centre" on the premises was found to be operating as a brothel. During the raid, a decoy customer successfully transacted for sexual services, leading to the recovery of marked currency and incriminating materials. The police report indicated that the hotel was located within 100 to 150 meters of a Marathi school and various ashrams/temples, thereby violating Section 7 of the PITA Act. The Petitioners argued that they were not served proper notice, that the premises were leased to a third party not joined in the proceedings, and that no closure order could be passed under Section 18 without a prior criminal conviction.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
- Issue: Whether a Magistrate can exercise powers of eviction and closure under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in the absence of a criminal conviction of the owner, occupier, or lessor under Sections 3 or 7 of the said Act.
- Holding: Yes, the Court held that the power of a Magistrate under Section 18(1) is independent of a criminal conviction. The petition was rejected as the impugned order was found to be a valid exercise of preventive jurisdiction.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 18(1) and Section 18(2) of the PITA Act operate in distinct spheres. Section 18(1) is a summary, preventive procedure vested in a Magistrate to ensure "moral hygiene" in sensitive localities (within 200 yards of public institutions) and only requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that the premises are used as a brothel after giving notice. Conversely, Section 18(2) is a punitive power exercised by a convicting Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in "Chintan J. Vaswani v. State of West Bengal", the Court clarified that no criminal prosecution or conviction is necessary for action under Section 18(1). The Court further noted that the principles of natural justice were followed as multiple notices were served, which the Petitioners failed to answer, and the physical proximity to a school and temples was sufficiently established by the police reports.
🔒 For Members Only