The court found that the police commissioner issued the notice and continued with the sealing of the property without the involvement of a jurisdictional magistrate. (Image generated using Google Gemini)Ruling that the police overstepped their jurisdiction by bypassing mandatory procedures under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Telangana High Court set aside the sealing and attachment of a building in Hyderabad’s Guttala Begumpet, which had been shut after a raid.In the judgment dated March 6, Justice E V Venugopal emphasised that while Section 18 of the Act allows for the closure of brothels, this power is vested strictly in a magistrate, not the police.The petitioner is the owner of a five-story building that he leased to tenants in March 2024 to operate a guest house. In August 2025, the Hyderabad police conducted a raid on the premises, claiming prostitution activities involving foreign nationals and several other accused individuals.Following the raid, the commissioner of police issued a show-cause notice and sealed the premises under Section 18(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The owner challenged this, stating he was neither present during the raid nor aware of the illegal activities, and that the property was his family’s sole source of livelihood.The court found that the police commissioner issued the notice and continued with the sealing of the property without the involvement of a jurisdictional magistrate. The court also emphasised that the law requires a specific finding that the owner had knowledge of the illicit activities before such “drastic” property deprivation can occur.Also Read | A brothel ‘customer’ can be charged under ITP Act: What the Kerala HC has saidThe court observed that the action taken by the police cannot be sustained in law and is “arbitrary and unsustainable” since the proceedings were not initiated by the competent authority as contemplated under the statute. “It is well settled that mere ownership of the premises cannot, by itself, be construed as knowledge or consent to the alleged activities unless there is material to establish such involvement,” Justice Venugopal then said.The court observed that the power under Section 18 of the Act must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure since it is “drastic in nature and resulting in deprivation of the use of property”. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the police to “forthwith de-seal the premises and restore possession” to the petitioner.Story continues below this adHowever, the court clarified that the competent magistrate remains free to initiate fresh, lawful proceedings if the circumstances warrant it.Rahul V Pisharody is Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting for IE on various news developments from Telangana since 2019. He is currently reporting on legal matters from the Telangana High Court. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of city reporters, district correspondents, other centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Hyderabadlegal news india