Judgment : 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 unwarranted. 4. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, and the relevant paragraph, which is quite apposite for disposal of this writ petition is extracted hereunder :- " Paragraph No.7. With regard to the allegations made by the petitioner, in paras 2 to 4 of the affidavit, this respondent submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Hotel Shoba and he is involved in Immoral Trafficking and the same has been proved on several enquiries conducted by the authorities, and as such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner herein is vexatious. The impugned order passed by the first respondent herein is valid in law and the petitioner cannot seek any relief before this Court, as the petitioner himself had given a confession statement that he and his colleagues were involved in Immoral Trafficking, and as such, the present writ petition cannot be entertained in any manner." 5. I have heard Mr. Silambannan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. R.Nalliyappan Associates, appearing for the petitioner, as also Mr. R.Laxmi Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents. 6. This Court, while entertaining the matter, on an earlier occasion, has directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the file in connection with the subject matter of this writ petition, so as to ascertain the correctness of the averments assigned by the first respondent in his counter affidavit. Today, when the matter is taken up for disposal, the file, as sought for, by this Court has been produced and on a perusal of the same, it could be deduced that there is no confession statement at all, as contended by the first respondent, and the averments, stated to have been made by the petitioner, cannot be said to be a confession statement at all. 7. Since the petitioner assailed the impugned order, primarily on the ground that no show cause notice has been issued to him, before passing the impugned order under Section 18(1) of the Act, which is in violation of principles of natural justice, which fact remains undisputed by the respondents, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order, passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The order in this writ petition will not preclude the Authorities from passing appropriate orders in compliance with Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. As the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to the knowledge of this Court that already charge-sheet has been laid out against the petitioner in the criminal case, this Court, makes it clear that this order will not in any way put an embargo on the respondent from proceeding further with regard to the criminal proceedings that is going to be initiated against the petitioner and the observations made herienabove, will have no impact on the criminal proceedings and it is full and full independent of the Writ Petition, being disposed of here. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.