Nitu And Ors. vs Gnctd & Ors. on 4 January, 2016


1. This writ petition is filed praying inter alia to declare Section 18 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‗the Act’) as void,
unconstitutional and ultra vires and further to quash the four orders of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paharganj, Delhi dated 21.07.2012
passed under Section 18 of the Act in respect of four premises, viz., (i)

W.P.(C) 4414/ 2012 Page 1 of 22
Kotha No.56, 2nd Floor; ii) Kotha No.42, 2nd Floor; iii) Kotha No.59, 2nd
Floor & (iv) Kotha No.5211, 1st Floor of G.B. Road, Delhi.
2. The impugned orders dated 21.07.2012 are identical and a perusal of
the same shows that the Station House Officer (SHO), Kamla Market filed
applications dated 10.05.2012 and 14.05.2012 under Section 18(1) of the
Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paharganj, Delhi seeking
closure of the four kothas mentioned above. It was alleged by the SHO that
on study of the cases of the last three years registered under various Sections
of the Act, it was found that several FIRs were registered with respect to the
premises in question. The particulars of the said FIRs were also furnished
by SHO. Pursuant thereto, the SDM issued notices dated 13.06.2012 to the
owner/Manager of the premises in question calling upon to show cause as to
why the same should not be attached for improper use and as to why action
should not be taken for their eviction from the said premises. In response to
the same, one Smt.Shamshad, claiming to be the owner/Manager of Kotha
No.56 appeared before the learned SDM on 20.06.2012. So far as Kotha
Nos.42, 59 & 5211 are concerned, Smt. Sujata, Smt.Sunita Devi and
Smt.Baby had appeared before SDM claiming that they are the lessees of the
respective premises. On a request made by them, the copies of the
documents filed by SHO along with his applications under Section 18(1) of
the Act were furnished and on 30.06.2012 replies were filed by them
through their counsel. On 16.07.2012, the learned SDM heard them as well
as the Government counsel appeared for the SHO. Thereafter, the impugned
orders dated 21.07.2012 came to be passed by the learned SDM holding that
the premises in question, which are within the distance of 200 meters of a

W.P.(C) 4414/ 2012 Page 2 of 22
school, are being used as brothel and therefore, the same require closure and
eviction of the occupants in terms of Section 18(1) of the Act within seven
days. There was also a direction that the owner/lessor/landlord or the agent
of the owner/lessor/landlord will not let out the premises without the prior
approval of SDM within three years of the said orders.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply