JUDGMENT 1. In view of commonality of the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions and at the request of both the counsel, both the Writ Petitions are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order. 2. Writ Petition No.7556 of 2015 has been filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 3 to 5 therein in harassing the petitioners therein by invoking the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') and the consequent impugned Notice in R.C. A/701/2014, dtd. 18/3/2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban, served on the petitioners on 19/3/2015 at about 4.15 PM, allegedly under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956, without following the procedure contemplated under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956 thereby infringing the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India during pendency of investigation in crime No.249 of 2014 registered by 3rd respondent therein and pending before the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct respondents 3 to 5 therein not to act upon the impugned notice issued by 5th respondent-Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban, till competent criminal court decides the matter. 3. Writ Petition No.12340 of 2015 has been filed seeking to declare action of 2nd respondent-Sub Collector in issuing proceedings under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956 in R.C. A1/1150/2014, dtd. 10/3/2015 giving observations with regard to title of the property in favour of 5th respondent therein, contrary to the categorical findings given in O.S.No.29 of 2006, dtd. 5/9/2012 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada and directing 3rd respondent thereinTahsildar to hand over possession of the property bearing D.No.27/36/12, Baireddy Ramanna Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada in favour of 5th respondent therein while directing to get tenants of the petitioner evicted from the premises in question, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the proceedings of 2nd respondent-Sub Collector to the extent it goes against the interest of the petitioner therein. 4. The averments of the Writ Petitions, in brief, are as follows. Petitioner in W.P.No.12340 of 2015 is the absolute owner and possessor of subject premises bearing D.No.27/36/12, Byreddy Ramanna Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada, and the petitioners in the other W.P.No.7556 of 2015 are tenants of the said premises. 4. The averments of the Writ Petitions, in brief, are as follows. Petitioner in W.P.No.12340 of 2015 is the absolute owner and possessor of subject premises bearing D.No.27/36/12, Byreddy Ramanna Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada, and the petitioners in the other W.P.No.7556 of 2015 are tenants of the said premises. According to the petitioners, the subject property and other properties are self-acquired properties of one Maganti Ramakrishnayya. He got three sons viz. M.Satyanarayana Murthy, late M.Gangadhara Rao and M.Subrahmanya Sastry, and six daughters. Petitioner in W.P.No.12340 of 2015 is wife of his late son M.Gangadhara Rao. The said Maganti Ramakrishnayya executed a registered will dtd. 31/8/1972 bequeathing the abovesaid properties in favour of his wife M.Annapurnamma and died on 18/1/1980. After his death, his wife became absolute owner of the said properties and she died on 20/11/1991. During her life time, she executed a will dtd. 14/8/1982, bequeathing the said properties in favour of her second son (husband of petitioner in W.P.No.12340 of 2015) and as such, after her death, husband of petitioner in W.P.No.12340 of 2015 became absolute owner of the said properties. Husband of petitioner in W.P.No.12340 of 2015 died intestate on 9/12/2000, leaving behind him his wife and two sons, and after his death, she became absolute owner of the said property. 6th respondent in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 (who is 5th respondent in the other W.P.) claimed the subject property having purchased the same from other two sons of original owner Maganti Ramakrishnayya, and as he was creating all kinds of disturbances, petitioner in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 filed O.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada seeking declaration, and vide Judgment dtd. 5/9/2012, the civil Court partly decreed the suit, without giving proper finding in respect of the subject property, and hence, she filed A.S.No.1097 of 2012 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order to the effect that any alienation of the schedule property shall be subject to result of the appeal. The said appeal is still pending. 6th respondent in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 (who is 5th respondent in the other W.P.) filed O.S.No.280 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking eviction and delivery of possession and the same is pending. The said appeal is still pending. 6th respondent in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 (who is 5th respondent in the other W.P.) filed O.S.No.280 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking eviction and delivery of possession and the same is pending. Having unsuccessful in getting the tenants evicted from the subject premises, 6th respondent in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 (who is 5th respondent in the other W.P.) indulged into immoral activities in the premises and pursuant to a complaint, crime No.249 of 2014 was registered by 3rd respondent in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 under Ss. 3, 4, 5 and 7 (1) of the Act, 1956, and the said case is pending. On 19/3/2015 at about 4.15 PM, the petitioners in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 received the impugned notice therein, dtd. 18/3/2015, stating that 3rd respondent therein gave a report to respondents 4 and 5 therein, directing them to vacate the subject premises within three days i.e. by 10.00 AM on 23/3/2015 and hand over the possession to respondents 3 to 5 therein or else they would be dispossessed and possession would be taken by them, alleging that the petitioners in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 indulged in activities prohibited under the Act, 1956. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.7556 of 2015 was filed. It is further stated that on coming to know about issuance of the impugned notice dtd. 18/3/2015 and filing of the first Writ Petition, the petitioner in the other W.P.No.12340 of 2015 filed implead petition in W.P.M.P.No.11718 of 2015 in W.P.No.7556 of 2015. It is her case that after filing the implead petition, 6th respondent therein filed certain documents before this Court, including proceedings of Sub Collector in Rc.A1/1150/2014, dtd. 10/3/2015 and also a letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban to the Inspector of Police, Governorpet police station. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.12340 of 2015 has been filed. 5. Respondents filed their respective counter affidavits denying the averments in the writ affidavits and stating that the petitioners are using the subject premises for conducting immoral activities and basing on the complaints given by the neighbours, five crimes were registered, and hence, by following the procedure contemplated under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956 and based on the reports furnished by police and revenue authorities, the impugned notice in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 was issued, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. 6. This Court heard the learned counsel for all the parties and perused the record. 7. The factual matrix as stated above, is not in dispute. The impugned notice dtd. 18/3/2015 in Writ Petition No.7556 of 2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban, whereby the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7556 of 2015 were directed vacate the subject premises within 3 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, is a consequential order based on the Order of the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada in Rc.A1/1150/2014, dtd. 10/3/2014, which is impugned in the other Writ Petition No.12340 of 2015, which is purportedly passed by exercising the powers under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956. By virtue of the said Order, the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada directed the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban to evict the petitioners in W.P.No.7556 of 2015 from the subject premises and restore the property to the owner of the home viz. Vemuri Venkata Rao (who is 5th respondent in WP No.7556 of 2015 and 6th respondent in the other Writ Petition). The said order came to be passed on the ground that the subject premises is being used for the purpose of brothel den and in connection with the same, four crimes mentioned in the said Order were registered against the tenants of the premises. 8. The petitioners challenge the said Order dtd. 10/3/2015 passed by the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada on two grounds viz. no notice has been issued prior to passing of the said order on the owner, lessor, etc. of the subject premises and that it is in the nature of determining title of the subject premises i.e. the last line of the said order stipulates to restore the property to the owner of the home Sri Vemuri Venkata Rao (who is 5th respondent in WP No.7556 of 2015 and 6th respondent in the other Writ Petition). According to the petitioners, civil disputes are pending between him and the petitioners with regard to the subject premises. 9. As regards issuance of prior notice, the Order dtd. 10/3/2014 passed by the Sub Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada, is in exercise of powers under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956. According to the petitioners, civil disputes are pending between him and the petitioners with regard to the subject premises. 9. As regards issuance of prior notice, the Order dtd. 10/3/2014 passed by the Sub Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada, is in exercise of powers under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956. According to the said order, as per Sec. 18 of the Act, 1956, the Magistrate may, on receipt of information from police or otherwise, that any house, room, place or any portion thereof within a distance of any public place is being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade, issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord, etc. to show cause as to why the same should not be attached for improper use thereof and thereafter pass orders. A reading of the impugned order does not disclose that any notice was issued to the petitioners either calling for explanation or affording an opportunity for giving explanation to the petitioners. Further, the notice dtd. 18/3/2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban, though styled as 'notice', it directed the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7556 of 2015 to vacate the subject premises within 3 days of the receipt of the said notice. Absolutely, no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to submit explanation. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7556 of 2015 approached this Court and obtained interim stay, and the same is still subsisting. It is also pertinent to note that, according to the petitioners, the cases registered as against the petitioners ended in acquittal and in one of the crimes, they were directed to pay fine. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the authorities followed the principles of natural justice in breach. 10. In view of the aforementioned reasons, impugned Order in R.C. A1/1150/2014, dtd. 10/3/2015 passed by the Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada be treated as a showcause notice and the petitioners are permitted to submit their objections, if any, to the said authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In case any objections are received by the respondentauthorities from the petitioners, the same shall be dealt with, and appropriate orders be passed, in accordance with law. It is made clear that till such time, no coercive action shall be taken as against the petitioners herein in respect of the subject premises. In case any objections are received by the respondentauthorities from the petitioners, the same shall be dealt with, and appropriate orders be passed, in accordance with law. It is made clear that till such time, no coercive action shall be taken as against the petitioners herein in respect of the subject premises. 11. With the abovesaid directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.