Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sharada Premlal Chhadi, aged 65 years, was the occupier of House No.6, City Survey No.175/528, Nagpur. She was allegedly running a brothel in the said premises. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, acting as the District Magistrate under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, issued a notice to the petitioner and passed an order on 26-9-2012 directing sealing of the premises and prohibiting its letting out for a period of three years. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application (APL) No.619 of 2012. The High Court set aside the order and directed respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to this, respondent No.2 issued notices and the petitioner appeared in person. After hearing her, the successor Commissioner of Police passed a similar order sealing the premises for three years. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the second order. The main legal issues were whether the Commissioner of Police had authority to pass the order under Section 18 of the Act and whether the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the order was passed by the Commissioner of Police as 'Additional District Magistrate', which is not the authority under Section 18. The court noted that the Commissioner of Police had been conferred with powers of District Magistrate for the purposes of Section 18, and the typographical error in the order did not vitiate it. Regarding the opportunity of hearing, the court observed that the petitioner was given personal hearing as directed, and the fact that her statement was not recorded did not amount to denial of opportunity, especially when she failed to show what prejudice was caused. The court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 18 - Power of District Magistrate - Sealing of Premises - The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, was conferred with powers of District Magistrate for purposes of Section 18 of the Act. A typographical error in the order describing him as 'Additional District Magistrate' does not vitiate the order as the authority was validly conferred. (Paras 5-7) B) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 18 - Opportunity of Hearing - The petitioner was given personal hearing as directed by the High Court. The fact that her statement was not recorded does not amount to denial of opportunity, especially when she did not show what prejudice was caused. The order was passed after considering her submissions. (Paras 6-8) C) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 18 - Validity of Order - The impugned order sealing the premises for three years was upheld as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or procedural violation that caused prejudice. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Police under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 sealing the petitioner's premises for three years was valid and whether the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Law Points
- Section 18 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- 1956 empowers District Magistrate to order sealing of premises used as brothel
- Commissioner of Police can be conferred with such powers
- typographical error in designation does not vitiate order
- opportunity of hearing must be meaningful but mere non-recording of statement does not invalidate order if no prejudice shown
