Premises Used As Brothel Can Be Closed By Magistrate Under PITA Even Without Conviction Of Owner: Bombay High Court

The Court clarified that the statutory scheme distinguishes between preventive action under Section 18(1) and post-conviction action under Section 18(2).

The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi, directing the eviction of the petitioners from their hotel premises and ordering its closure for one year under Section 18 of the PITA Act.

A Bench of Justice Mehroz K. Pathan, while interpreting Section 18 of the Act, relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chintan J. Vaswani and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal (1975), and observed: “… taking into consideration the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the powers under Section 18(1) can be exercised by the Magistrate for closure of premises even without there being any conviction of the owner under Section 3 or Section 7 of the PITA Act, ... the powers under Section 18(1) are to be exercised by the Magistrate, whereas the powers under Section 18(2) are to be exercised by the convicting Court, ... these two powers are to be exercised distinctly by ‘two different authorities’ in two different contingencies.”

Advocate Sanket S. Kulkarni appeared for the petitioners, while K. K. Naik, APP, represented the State.

Background

The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi, directing the closure of the premises of “Hotel Shirdi Sai Inn” for a period of one year and the eviction of the occupants under Section 18 of the PITA Act.

The action followed registration of an FIR by Shirdi Police Station alleging operation of a prostitution racket under the guise of a spa centre at the hotel premises. According to the prosecution, a police raid conducted based on confidential information led to the recovery of several women allegedly involved in prostitution, along with mobile phones, cash and other materials from the premises.

Following the registration of the FIR under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the PITA Act, the police submitted a report to the competent authority recommending closure of the premises under Section 18 of the Act. Based on this proposal, notices were issued to the petitioners seeking their response to the proposed action.

The petitioners did not file any reply to the show-cause notices issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Consequently, relying on the police report and other materials, the competent authority ordered the eviction of the petitioners and closure of the premises for one year.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and that closure of the premises could not be ordered without their conviction under Sections 3 or 7 of the PITA Act.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first examined whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that multiple notices had been served upon the petitioners during the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but they failed to file any response or explanation.

The Court observed that the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case and therefore the contention regarding violation of natural justice was unsustainable.

The Court considered the argument that the premises could not be closed without proof that they were located within 200 meters of a public place. Referring to the police report submitted to the competent authority, the Court noted that the premises were located in proximity to a school, temples, residential colonies and establishments frequented by devotees visiting the Sai Mandir.

The Court held that in the absence of any rebuttal from the petitioners, the competent authority was justified in relying upon the police report and concluding that the premises fell within the prohibited distance prescribed under Section 7 of the PITA Act.

The Court also rejected the contention that the impugned order was vitiated for failure to issue notice to the alleged leave and licence holder of the premises, holding that “the person who was found to be in occupation of the premises… and the owners of the premises… were issued notices, and as such, the mandate of Section 18(1) appears to have been properly followed.” Consequently, the Court found that non-issuance of notice to the alleged licence holder would not vitiate the impugned order and rejected the contention.

Another issue considered by the Court was whether an order under Section 18(1) of the PITA Act could be passed without a conviction of the owner or occupier.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 18 and referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chintan J. Vaswani v. State of West Bengal (1975), where it was held that Section 18(1) is a preventive provision enabling closure of premises used as a brothel without the necessity of criminal prosecution or conviction.

The Apex Court, in its ruling in Chintan J. Vaswani, had observed: “Section 18(1) deals with a summary procedure for closing down obnoxious places of prostitution, without going through the detailed process of a criminal prosecution, …it is a quick-acting defensive mechanism, calculated to extinguish the brothel and promote immediate moral sanitation.”

The Bombay High Court accordingly concluded that “the plain and unambiguous meaning of the aforesaid clauses of Section 18 itself suggests that, for taking action under Section 18(1), the conviction of the owner, lessor, or occupier under Sections 3 or 7 is not mandatory.”

Conclusion

Finding no illegality in the impugned order directing eviction and closure of the premises, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the criminal writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Anup Ganpat Gondkar alias Anup Rajendra Gondkar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:11692)

Click here to read/download Judgment