Conviction under PITA Act is not a prerequisite for premises closure ordered under Section 18(1).

The Petitioners, owners of Hotel Shirdi Sai Inn, challenged an order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Shirdi, directing their eviction and the closure of the hotel for one year.

The order was initiated following FIR No. 1112/2023 under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA), wherein a police raid involving a decoy customer allegedly uncovered a prostitution racket operating as a "Spa Centre" on the premises.

The police submitted a proposal for closure under Section 18 of PITA, asserting the hotel was situated within 100 to 150 meters of a school and various temples.

Despite receiving multiple show-cause notices from the SDM, the Petitioners failed to file a response.

1. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the competent authority lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that the premises were within 200 meters of a public place in violation of Section 7 of PITA.

3. Whether a prior conviction under Section 3 or Section 7 of PITA is a mandatory prerequisite for exercising powers of eviction and closure under Section 18(1).

Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, distinguishing between sub-section (1), which empowers a Magistrate to act preventively based on information after a show-cause notice, and sub-section (2), which empowers a convicting court to pass such orders upon a finding of guilt.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Chintan J. Vaswani v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 2473), which held that Section 18(1) is a preventive "moral scavenging" provision that does not require a prior criminal conviction.

The court also applied the principles from Maqsood Mohammed Mustak v. State of Maharashtra (2022 ALL MR (Cri) 3743) regarding the distinct operational spheres of Section 18(1) and 18(2).

The Court rejected the Petitioners' claim regarding natural justice, noting that the record evidenced three separate notices served via the Shirdi Police Station, to which the Petitioners failed to respond.

Regarding the proximity to public places, the Court found the detailed police report—locating the hotel within 70 to 150 meters of a Marathi school, various temples, and residential colonies—sufficiently established a violation of Section 7, especially as the Petitioners failed to lead evidence to the contrary.

On the legal requirement for conviction, the Court clarified that Section 18(1) (Magisterial power) is independent of Section 18(2) (Convicting Court power).

The Court specifically declined to follow the coordinate bench decision in Rajaram @ Rajendra Wamanrao Ghogare v. State of Maharashtra, observing that the said judgment inadvertently applied the requirements of Section 18(2) to a Section 18(1) order and was rendered in ignorance of the Supreme Court's ruling in Chintan J. Vaswani.

The Court ruled that under Section 18(1) of PITA, a Magistrate is authorized to order the closure and eviction of premises used as a brothel near public places without a prior conviction, provided the procedural requirement of a show-cause notice is met.

The Petitioners failed to demonstrate any grounds for interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.