Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Bombay High Court on Closure of Hotel under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

Update / Judgement Date

17 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

3 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Bombay High Court on Closure of Hotel under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Bombay High Court quashed the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act) directing closure of the petitioner’s hotel “Sai Sheetal” for one year. The Court held that principles of natural justice were violated since the petitioner, the owner of the hotel, was not given notice or an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. While Section 18(1) allows a Magistrate to issue notices and pass closure orders, the absence of a hearing renders such an order unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for fresh consideration after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.


Background:
  1. The petitioner, Babasaheb Bhimraj Chaudhari, is the owner of “Sai Sheetal” hotel, which was leased on a leave-and-license basis to respondent no.5 for 11 months each year.
  2. FIR No.321/2023 was registered at Shirdi Police Station under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the PITA Act against the petitioner, co-owner Rajendra Sitaram Gadekar, and respondent no.5. The petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail.
  3. A show-cause notice dated 03.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner regarding closure of the hotel, to which the petitioner responded on 08.07.2025, denying involvement and stating the premises was leased to respondent no.5.
  4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, passed the closure order dated 18.07.2025 without serving notice to the petitioner and referenced Crime No.499/2024 against respondent no.5.


Court’s Observations:
  1. Section 18(1) PITA Act requires notice to be issued to the owner/lessor/agent or tenant of the premises and allows the Magistrate to pass orders after hearing the concerned person.
  2. Admittedly, the petitioner did not receive any notice, and no hearing was conducted. Reference to notice dated 24.04.2025 was not applicable, as it was never served.
  3. The order was thus passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
  4. The Court emphasized that the owner must be given an opportunity to be heard before passing an order under Section 18(1) of the PITA Act.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 18(1), Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956: Magistrate may order closure and eviction of premises used for prostitution after issuing notice and hearing the concerned persons.
  2. Principles of Natural Justice: Right to notice and hearing before passing orders affecting legal rights.


Decision:
  1. Writ Petition Allowed.
  2. Impugned order dated 18.07.2025 quashed and set aside.
  3. Proceedings remanded to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shirdi, to pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within six weeks.
  4. Rule made absolute.


Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:29892-DB

Case: Babasaheb Bhimraj Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad

Coram: Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi & Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav

Criminal Writ Petition No.: 1171 of 2025