No Need to Convict Owner Before Ordering Closure of Premises Used for Prostitution: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has upheld the closure of a hotel in Shirdi allegedly being used for running a prostitution racket, holding that authorities can order eviction and sealing of premises under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 even without a prior criminal conviction of the owner or occupier.

The Court clarified that such action is preventive in nature and can be taken where material indicates that the premises is being used as a brothel, particularly when located in proximity to public places.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mehroz K. Pathan dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by the owners of Hotel Sai Inn challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing eviction and closure of the premises for a period of one year.

The Court held that the competent authority had complied with the requirements under Section 18(1) of the Act, including issuance of multiple notices, and that the order was justified based on police material indicating that the premises was being used for prostitution activities within 200 meters of a school, temples and residential areas.

The case arose from an FIR registered in December, 2023 at Shirdi Police Station under provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

According to the prosecution, acting on specific information regarding a prostitution racket operating under the guise of a spa centre, the police conducted a raid using a decoy customer.

During the operation, multiple women were found in the premises, along with cash, mobile phones and other material.

The decoy customer allegedly handed marked currency notes to a woman at the premises and was subsequently found in a room with another woman, following which the police team entered and conducted the search.

The investigation led to the registration of offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Act.

Based on the material collected, the police submitted a proposal to the competent authority seeking closure of the premises under Section 18.

Notices were thereafter issued to the petitioners, who were the owners of the premises, calling upon them to show cause as to why the premises should not be sealed and they should not be evicted.

The petitioners did not file any reply, following which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order directing closure of the premises for one year.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the order had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as they were unable to respond to the notices due to medical reasons.

It was argued that they should have been granted an opportunity to present their case and that the matter ought to be remanded for fresh consideration.

The petitioners further contended that there was no cogent evidence to establish that the premises fell within 200 meters of a public place, which is a requirement under Section 7 of the Act.

It was submitted that no documentary evidence or proper inquiry had been conducted to support such a conclusion.

Another contention raised was that the premises had been given on leave and licence to a third party who was allegedly running the spa, and that such person had not been made a party to the proceedings.

It was argued that the impugned order was therefore vitiated for non-joinder of a necessary party.

The petitioners also relied on a previous decision of the High Court to argue that closure of premises under Section 18 requires prior conviction of the owner or occupier under Sections 3 or 7 of the Act, and that in the absence of such conviction, the impugned order could not be sustained.

Opposing the petition, the State submitted that multiple notices had been duly served upon the petitioners and that they had failed to respond despite being given adequate opportunity.

It was argued that the competent authority had relied on detailed reports submitted by the police, which indicated that the premises was being used as a brothel in a locality frequented by devotees and situated near a school, temples and residential areas.

The High Court, after examining the record, rejected the contention that principles of natural justice had been violated. It noted that notices had been served on multiple occasions and that the petitioners had failed to file any response.

The bench held that in such circumstances, it could not be said that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.

On the issue of location and proximity to public places, the Court observed that the police report contained specific details regarding the presence of a school within 100-150 meters, temples, residential colonies and other public spaces in the vicinity.

It held that in the absence of any rebuttal by the petitioners, the competent authority was justified in relying on such material to conclude that the premises was being used in violation of the statutory provisions.

The Court also rejected the contention regarding non-joinder of the alleged licensee, observing that notices had been issued to the owners of the premises as well as the person found to be in occupation at the time of the raid. It held that this satisfied the statutory requirement under Section 18(1) and that absence of notice to the alleged licensee would not vitiate the proceedings.

Addressing the central contention regarding the necessity of prior conviction, the Court undertook an analysis of the statutory scheme and relevant precedents. It held that Section 18(1) and Section 18(2) of the Act operate in distinct fields. While Section 18(2) applies in cases where a person has been convicted of offences under Sections 3 or 7, Section 18(1) empowers the Magistrate to take preventive action based on information that the premises is being used as a brothel, after giving an opportunity of hearing.

The Court observed that the requirement of conviction cannot be read into Section 18(1), and that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to enable immediate preventive action in cases involving use of premises for prostitution in sensitive areas.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chintan J. Vaswani v. State of West Bengal, the Court noted that powers under Section 18(1) are intended to ensure public morality and can be exercised without waiting for the outcome of criminal prosecution.

In view of these findings, the Court held that the impugned order was lawful and did not warrant interference under its writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Anup Ganpat Gondkar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justice Mehroz K. Pathan

Date of Judgment: 17.03.2026