W.P. No. 25663 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013. Case: T.K. Sadhananthan Vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 25663 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Silambannan, Senior Counsel for M/s. R. Nalliyappan Associates and For Respondents: Mr. R. Laxmi Narayanan Spl. Govt. Pleader |
| Judges | S. Vaidyanathan, J. |
| Issue | Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Sections 18, 18(1), 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 7(1), 9 |
| Judgement Date | June 04, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
-
The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, pertaining to the impugned order, dated 27.08.2013, passed by the first respondent, whereby, the petitioner's hotel has been ordered to be closed.
-
The case of the petitioner, as given in the affidavit, filed in support of this Writ Petition, in gist, is that he is running an hotel, under the name and style of "Hotel Shoba". Whileso, a criminal case came to be registered against him and others in Crime No. 138 of 2011, on the file of the respondent-Police, for offence punishable under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 7(1) and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), based on the First Information Report (F.I.R.) given by the Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O), wherein, it is stated that, during the spot inspection conducted in the abovesaid Hotel, it was found that the said hotel is being used as brothel place for carrying on prostitution, hence, VAO submitted a report, thereby, recommending for confiscation of the Hotel. On the aforesaid background, the first respondent passed an order, dated 27.08.2013, impugned herein, thereby, ordering for closure of the petitioner's hotel on 27.08.2013. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for the relief, as stated above.
-
According to the petitioner, the second respondent registered the abovesaid criminal case with an intention to trap a lady, by name Kamalaveni, under the aforesaid Act, which unfortunately, resulted in the implication of the petitioner, as accused in this case, and his hotel, as place of occurrence. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is no way connected with the said offence and his Hotel has not been used as brothel place, as alleged by the V.A.O. In this regard, the petitioner has also made a detailed representation to VAO, dated 3.01.2013, stoutly refuting the allegations made against him by stating that he has been running the Hotel for the past two decades with a clean slate, that apart, he is a resident of that place and living there with good reputation and fame and hence, the filing of the chargesheet itself, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial