Patna High Court
Indu DeviversusThe State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The sealing order was illegal, set aside, and the premises must be unsealed.
Summary
Indu Devi, wife of the owner of Hotel Central Park, filed a writ petition challenging the sealing of the hotel premises ordered by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. She argued that no show‑cause notice was issued to her husband, the landlord, and no hearing was afforded, violating natural justice. The State contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the sealing was lawful. The Court examined the statutory requirement of a notice and hearing under Section 18, held that the sealing was effected without complying with these procedural safeguards, and therefore was illegal. The petition for quashing the sealing order was allowed, and the State was directed to unseal the premises within a week. The relief seeking deletion of the husband’s name from the accused list was withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the sealing order issued under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is valid in the absence of a show‑cause notice and hearing.
- Whether the petitioner, as the wife of the landlord, has locus standi to challenge the sealing order.
- Whether an order passed under Section 18 can be set aside despite the provision that such orders are not appealable.
- Whether the husband’s name can be deleted from the charge‑sheet in the criminal case.
Legislation cited
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 15, 18, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Subjects
- sealing order
- show cause notice
- natural justice
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- writ of certiorari
- locus standi
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1674 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Indu Devi Wife of Basant Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Nayatola,
P.O.- Head Office Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Kaji Mohammadpur, District –
Muzaffarpur - 842001, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Bihar
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East), Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
Bihar
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. Bihar
5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer-Town, District - Muzaffarpur. Bihar
6. The SHO (Station House Officer), Nagar Thana Muzaffarpur, Dist.-
Muzaffarpur. Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kr. Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.A.G.05
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the order contained in
Letter No. 1943 dated 12.06.2025, issued by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East),
whereby the premises of Hotel Central Park,
situated at Aghoria Bazar, Muzaffarpur, was sealed
on 13.06.2025 pursuant to a notice erroneously
dated 13.06.2024 instead of the correct date of
13.06.2025, without issuance of any show cause
notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner’s husband, who is the landlord of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/8
said premises, in gross violation of the principles
of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of
Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction, including a writ in the nature of
certiorary or mandamus, commanding the
respondent authorities to forthwith delete the name
of the petitioner’s husband from the array of the
accused persons in Nagar Thana, Muzaffarpur P.S.
Case No. 301 of 2025, dated 10.6.2025, registered
under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as he has no
involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence and
has been falsely and arbitrarily implicated without
any cogent evidence in support thereof.
(iii) For issuance of any appropriate writ(s),
order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that so far as the relief no. 2 is concerned, in
supervision note, the supervising authority has also found that
there is no involvement of the husband of the petitioner in the
whole occurrence and therefore, he does not want to press relief
sought as relief no. 2.
4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as it appears
from the record is that finding the premises, a hotel owned by
the husband of the petitioner, being used in immoral trafficking,
the said premises, namely Hotel Central Park, was sealed by the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/8
police in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 301
of 2025 registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the sealing has been made in contravention to the provisions of
Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The
Section 18 of the said Act provides furnishing a show cause
notice to the owner / landlord / lessor or agent, whose house,
room, place of question was being run or used as brothel or by
prostitutes for carrying out their trade. And the noticee is
supposed to reply to this show cause within seven days. No such
notice has been given to the husband of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel further submits that moreover,
the husband of the petitioner has let out the premises to one
Ankit Kumar and a rent agreement has been annexed with the
present writ petition. The same fact was taken note of by the
supervisory authority during the investigation. Learned counsel
further submits that the husband of the petitioner has taken a
loan of rupees sixty-six lakh from a financial institution for
constructing the hotel Central Park and had been paying
monthly installments of rupees seventy-five thousand four
hundred and seventy, but due to abrupt sealing, he is not able to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
4/8
run the hotel and severe financial distress has been caused to the
petitioner, who is wholly dependent on income from this rented
premises for his upkeep. He has also given detailed
representation to the I.G., Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in this
regard, but no action has been taken.
7. Learned counsel further submits that a counter-
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent nos. 4
to 6, but counter-affidavit is silent on the point that legal
requirement of furnishing a notice to the landlord has not been
complied with by the authorities. Learned counsel referred to a
decision of learned single judge of this Court in the case of
Noorjahan Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported
in 2021 (6) BLJ 430, wherein on the ground that no show cause
notice was issued to the petitioners, and no hearing was
provided to the petitioners and thus, procedure prescribed under
Section 18 of the Act was not followed, the order for sealing of
the premises was set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the State respondent
vehemently contends that there is no illegality in the impugned
order. He further submits that the petitioner has no Locus standi
in the present writ petition as she is not the owner of the
premises in question. The premises of the husband of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
5/8
petitioner was being used as a place for immoral purposes and
during investigation the names of the accused Ankit Kumar as
well as the husband of the petitioner transpired for being
involved in allowing the premises to be used for the purpose of
prostitution. The witnesses examined during investigation have
supported the prosecution case against the husband of the
petitioner and his hotel. However, he very fairly concedes that
no girl or female was found or apprehended from the hotel of
the husband of the petitioner.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and rival submission of the parties, whatever might be
the submission of learned State counsel about Locus standi of
the petitioner, it is a fact that she is the wife of the owner of the
premises in question. Now, Section 18 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 is as under:
“(1) A Magistrate may, on receipt of
information from the police or otherwise, that any
house, room, place or any portion thereof with a
distance of two hundred meters of any public place
referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7, is being
run or used as a brothel by any person, or is being
used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade,
issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord of
such house, room, place or portion or the agent of
the owner, lessor or landlord or on the tenant,
lessee, occupier of, or any other person in charge
of such house, room, place, or portion, to show
cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice
why the same should not be attached for improper
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
6/8
user thereof; and if, after hearing the person
concerned, the Magistrate is satisfied that the
house, room, place, or portion is being used as a
brothel or for carrying on prostitution, then the
Magistrate may pass orders-
(a) directing eviction of the occupier within
seven days of the passing of the order from the
house, room, place, or portion;
(b) directing that before letting it out during
the period of one year or in a case where a child or
minor has been found in such a house, room, place
or portion during a search under Section 15,
during the period of three years, immediately after
the passing of the order, the owner, lessor or
landlord or the agent of the owner, lessor or
landlord shall obtain the previous approval of the
Magistrate:
Provided that, if the Magistrate finds that
the owner, lessor or landlord as well as the agent
of the owner, lessor or landlord, was innocent of
the improper user of the house, room, place or
portion, he may cause the same to be restored to
the owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent of the
owner, lessor or landlord, with a direction that the
house, room, place or portion shall not be leased
out, or otherwise given possession of, to or for the
benefit of the person who was allowing the
improper user therein.
(2) A Court convicting a person of any
offence under section 3 or section 7 may pass
orders under sub-section (1), without further notice
to such person to show cause as required in that
sub-section.
(3) Orders passed by the Magistrate or
Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
shall not be subject to appeal and shall not be
stayed or set aside by the order of any court, civil
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
7/8
or criminal, and the said orders shall cease to have
validity after the expiry of one year or three years,
as the case may be:
Provided that where a conviction
under section 3 or section 7 is set aside on appeal
on the ground that such house, room, place or any
portion thereof is not being run or used as a
brothel or is not being used by prostitutes for
carrying on their trade, any order passed by the
trial court under sub-section (1) shall also be set
aside.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, when a
Magistrate passes an order under sub-section (1),
or a court passes an order under sub-section (2),
any lease or agreement under which the house,
room, place or portion is occupied at the time shall
become void and inoperative.
(5) When an owner, lessor or landlord, or
the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord fails to
comply with a direction given under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) he shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees or when
he fails to comply with a direction under the
proviso to that sub-section, he shall be deemed to
have committed an offence under clause (b) of sub-
section (2) of section 3 or clause (c) of sub-section
(2) of section 7, as the case may be, and punished
accordingly.”
10. Bare reading of the provision shows a notice is
required calling for show cause within seven days and to the
land lord / lessor or agent of the owner why the premises should
not be attached for improper use. Further, after hearing the
person concerned, on recording the satisfaction, the Magistrate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1674 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
8/8
can order for sealing of such premises. But, it is apparent from
record that nothing of the sort has been done. No notice was
issued and no hearing was given to the land lord. There is no
satisfaction of the Magistrate for sealing the premises on record.
Therefore, the sealing of the premises belonging to the husband
of the petitioner is completely illegal and hence, the order dated
12.06.2025, contained in Letter No. 1943, issued by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East), by which the sealing
has been ordered, is set aside.
11. The State respondents are directed to unseal the
premises on receipt / production of copy of this order within a
week.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…