Bombay High Court Upholds Closure Of Hotel Over Alleged Prostitution, Says Prior Conviction Not Needed Under Immoral Trafficking Act

The Bombay High Court has held that an order directing closure or eviction of premises under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, does not require a prior conviction of the owner, occupier or lessor. The Court observed that Section 18(1) is a preventive provision enabling action based on material indicating use of premises as a brothel, whereas the requirement of conviction applies only to proceedings under Section 18(2).

Justice Mehroz K. Pathan was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by the owners of Hotel Sai Inn, challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing eviction from the premises and closure of the hotel for one year under Section 18 of the Act. The action followed registration of an FIR alleging that prostitution activities were being carried out in the hotel under the guise of a spa centre, based on a police raid involving a decoy customer and recovery of incriminating material. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, that there was no sufficient evidence to establish a violation of Section 7 of the Act, and that the premises could not have been closed in the absence of a conviction under Sections 3 or 7.

The Court first rejected the contention regarding violation of natural justice, noting that repeated notices were served upon the petitioners and sufficient opportunity was granted to respond, which they failed to avail. It further held that the competent authority had relied on a detailed police report indicating proximity of the premises to public places such as a school, temples, and residential areas, thereby establishing a violation of Section 7.

On the central issue, the Court undertook an interpretation of Section 18 of the Act and held that sub-sections (1) and (2) operate in distinct spheres. It observed that Section 18(1) empowers the Magistrate to order eviction and closure upon satisfaction, after issuing a show-cause notice, that the premises are being used as a brothel. In contrast, Section 18(2) applies where a person has been convicted under Sections 3 or 7, and in such cases, the convicting court may pass similar orders without the requirement of notice.

“The mandatory condition of a conviction of the owner, lessor, or occupier is required only to pass an order of closure in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the PITA Act by the convicting Court, whereas no such conviction is required for closure/eviction of the premises if the same is ordered in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) by the Magistrate, even when charges of running a brothel are still pending before the trial Court,” the Court observed.

The Court clarified that the requirement of prior conviction is confined to Section 18(2) and cannot be read into Section 18(1). It further noted that Section 18(1) is intended as a preventive mechanism to ensure public morality and hygiene, and does not partake the character of a punitive provision requiring proof of guilt in a criminal trial.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order directing closure and eviction of the premises.

Case Title: Anup Ganpat Gondkar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1405 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 121

Click Here To Read/Download Order