VIJENDER JAIN ( 1 ) THIS petition has been directed against the order of SDM dropping the proceedings against respondent no. 2 which were initiated under Sec. 20 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). An application was moved by the petitioner, inter alia, praying that respondent be ordered to be removed from the local jurisdiction and particularly from 2nd floor, 91, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-ll, New Delhi in terms of Section 20 of the Act, On the basis of the said application filed by the petitioner show cause notice under Sec. 20 of the Act was issued by the SDM on 3. 6. 94. In the said notice it was mentioned by the learned SDM that :- "on going through the complaint and the police report, I hereby show cause Ms. Sangeeta Singh r/o 2nd Floor, 91, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-ll, New Delhi that why she should not be required to remove herself from the place and be prohibited from re-entering it. " ( 2 ) HOWEVER, the SDM on 26. 10. 94 dropped the proceedings, inter alia, stating that in view of the fact that the case is pending in the court of metropolitan magistrate under the Act and another matter is pending in the court of civil judge who has ordered that the respondent should be evicted only in accordance with law. On the basis of aforesaid two cases, SDM vide impugned order came to a finding that proceedings initiated under Sec. 20 of the Act if allowed to continue would only hamper the justice and, thereafter, dropped the proceedings. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. N. Mittal has vehemently argued that once learned SDM has invoked Sec. 20 of the Act, he has to conclude the enquiry and have ordered after such enquiry if he comes to a conclusion that the respondent was a prostitute then he ought to have ordered the removal of the respondent from the local limit of his jurisdiction, if SDM on the basis of material before him was satisfied that the respondent was not a prostitute within the meaning of Sec. 20 of the Act the learned SDM ought to have ordered accordingly. ( 4 ) MR. ( 4 ) MR. MITTAL has further contended that dropping of the proceedings in view of proceedings pending in a court of a magistrate or before a civil judge is not a bar for enquiry which is contemplated under Sec. 20 of the said Act. Mr. Mittal has also contended that the Act, as it suggests, is preventive in nature and therefore the law enjoins an obligation on the magistrate to remove such prostitute if in the opinion of the magistrate after enquiry he comes to that finding. Mr. Mittal has also contended that after proceedings being initiated under Sec. 20 of the Act any action by the learned SDM to drop the same amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction by the SDM. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the case in which the respondent is being tried before a Magistrate under the Act, prosecution cannot sustain its case, as the case is that of mistaken identity. In the alternative he has contended that in any event of the matter if a person has been charged for an offence under the Act for prostitution one solitary case will not lead to a conclusion that the respondent is a prostitute. ( 6 ) MR. UPPAL, learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that even otherwise Sec. 20 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as power of removal from the dwelling unit in which the alleged prostitute is living, would be discriminatory inasmuch as a tenant could be removed by the magistrate purporting to act under Sec. 20 of the Act on coming to a finding that the offender is a prostitute, whereas if a landlady is found to be a prostitute, she cannot be directed to abandon her property. In the alternative Mr. Uppal has argued that in such kind of cases removal of such landlady would amount to denial of her right to use her property, which is violative of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) I have given my careful consideration to the respective arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. In the alternative Mr. Uppal has argued that in such kind of cases removal of such landlady would amount to denial of her right to use her property, which is violative of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) I have given my careful consideration to the respective arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) THIS Court will not go into the merit of the case nor would comment on the case, which is pending against the respondent under the provisions of the Act in the court of metropolitan magistrate. This Court is also not concerned with the pendency of the case which is pending in the court of civil judge in which it has been directed by the civil court that respondent will not be evicted except in accordance with law. The only question this court has to authoritatively answer is, whether the dropping of the proceedings by the learned SDM after assuming jurisdiction under Sec. 20 of the Act was justified or not? Sec. 20 of the Act is as follows:- "removal of prostitute from any place - (1) A magistrate on receiving information that any (person) residing in or frequenting any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction is a prostitute, may record the substance of the information received and issue a notice to such (person) requiring him to appear before the Magistrate and show cause why he should not be required to remove himself from the place and be prohibited from reentering it. (2) Every notice issued under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the record aforesaid, and the copy shall be served along with the notice on the (person) against whom the notice is issued. (3) The Magistrate shall, after the service of the. notice referred to in sub-section (2), proceed to inquire into the truth of the information received, and after giving the (person) an opportunity of. (3) The Magistrate shall, after the service of the. notice referred to in sub-section (2), proceed to inquire into the truth of the information received, and after giving the (person) an opportunity of. adducing evidence, take such further evidence, as he thinks fit and if upon such inquiry it appears to him that such (person) is prostitute and that it is necessary in the interests of the general public that such (person) should be required to remove himself therefrom and be prohibited from re-entering the same the Magistrate shall, by order in writing communicate to the (person) in the manner specified therein, require him after a date (to be specified in the order) which shall not be less than seven days from the date of the order, to remove himself from the place whether within or without the local limits of his jurisdiction, by such route or routes and within such time as may be specified in the order and also prohibit him from re- entering the place without the permission in writing of the Magistrate having jurisdiction over such place. . . . . . . " ( 9 ) FROM the bare reading of the section the legislative intention is manifest that this section is preventive in nature. Section 20 of the Act postulates that "on information received that any person is a prostitute a notice to such person has to be given by the magistrate to show cause as to why he/she should hot be required to be removed from the place. In this case a notice has been given by the learned SDM calling upon the person, i. e. respondent. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 20 of the Act postulatesthat the magistrate after service of the notice has to proceed to enquire as to the truth of the information received after giving the person an opportunity of adducing evidence. The law further enjoins that the magistrate is empowered to take further evidence and can have recourse to further enquiry to satisfy that a person accused is a prostitute or not and thereafter has to make order as contained in Sec. 20 of the Act. Once the legislative intention is unambiguous that this section has been enacted to prevent a prostitute from entering that area after magistrate is satisfied on enquiry that person is a prostitute, the removal is in larger public interest from the area. Once the legislative intention is unambiguous that this section has been enacted to prevent a prostitute from entering that area after magistrate is satisfied on enquiry that person is a prostitute, the removal is in larger public interest from the area. Pending of a case for an offence under the ITP Act or pendency of a suit on account of dispute between the landlody/landlord and tenant is no bar to the Jurisdiction to be exercised by the magistrate under Section20 of the Act. That being so, the pendency of a case in a civil court or in the court of metropolitan magistrate in this case cannot be a valid reason for dropping the proceedings by the learned SDM. Once the SDM has assumed jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act it was obligatory on the part of the SDM to have followed the mandate of Section 20 of the Act and have recorded the finding as contemplated under the Act, notwithstanding the proceedings or trial pending in different courts. ( 10 ) I do not see any force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that Sec. 20 of the Act is ultra vires of the Constitution as Sec. 20 is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. From the plain reading of Sec. 20 of the Act. what is required is that if a magistrate on receiving information that any person residing in or frequenting any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction is a prostitute may issue notice to show cause to such person as to why he should not be removed from the place and be prohibited from re-entering it. This Section has been enacted keeping in view the interest of the society large which is manifesly clear from the language of sub-section (3) of Sec. 20 of the Act. From the plain language of Sec. 20 of the Act the word person has been substituted in place of woman and girl by the amending Act 44 of 1986. The concept of landlord or tenant is not found in the language of Sec. 20 of the Act. Therefore, there is no discrimination between the landlady and tenant as has been canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent. The concept of landlord or tenant is not found in the language of Sec. 20 of the Act. Therefore, there is no discrimination between the landlady and tenant as has been canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent. Legislature has intended that if a person is acting as a prostitute it is in the interest of general public that such person should be removed and therefrom prohibiting such person from re-entering the same locality for the purpose of prostution. I do not find any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on any ground whatsoever. ( 11 ) THE intent and purpose of enactment of Sec. 20 of the Act is altogether independent and different. Therefore, dropping of the proceedings on this score is bad in law. He is directed to continue with the enquiry in terms of Sec. 20 of the Act and pass a final order in terms thereof. ( 12 ) IN view of the above observations, I set aside the impugned order of the learned SDM and remand the case back to him with the directions to decide the matter in accordance with law. ( 13 ) THE trial court record be sent back forthwith.