M.KATJU, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents and their subordinates and other officers not to evict the petitioners from their residences and not to harass them. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this case on 19 -11 -2002 learned Standing Counsel prayed for time to seek instructions. Today learned Standing Counsel has submitted written instructions before us which shall be placed on record and shall be treated as the counter -affidavit in this case. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been doing the profession of singing and dancing for the last several years and have nothing to do with prostitution nor have they violated the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. They are living in their respective residences coming within the area of Police Station Brahmapuri, District Meerut. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that after coming into force of the Amending Act No. 44 of 1984, the police authorities and so -called social workers started harassing everybody in the red -light area on the basis of the allegations that they were indulging in the vice of prostitution. In the year 1985 an attempt was made by the Circle Officer (City) and others to evict the petitioners and other ladies from their respective residences and also to create conditions under which it may become impossible for them to peacefully and willfully carry on their profession with the result that the petitioners were constrained to file writ petition No. 8353 of 1985, Sunahari Devi v. State of U.P. and others. Learned Standing Counsel gave an undertaking in that case that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their respective residences nor shall there be any interference with their right to carry on their profession. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed off with the direction that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners from their respective residences nor shall they interfere with their right of singing and dancing except in accordance with law. True copy of the judgment dated 14 -5 -1985 is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Thereafter things remained quiet for some time and the petitioners could perform their profession of singing and dancing without any hindrance and live in their residences.
(3.) IT has been alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that like the other places in the country in Meerut also prostitutes, singers and dancers and other women were being harassed by the police in all possible ways and numerous writ petitions had to be filed in this connection. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners have never been convicted for any offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the respondents have no right to interfere with their right of living in their respective houses. A similar writ petition being writ petition No. 4332 of 1976, Smt. Laung Shree and others v. State of U.P., was filed which was heard and allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7 -9 -1977. True copy of the judgment in that case is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed not to interfere with the right of the petitioners to carry on their profession of singing and dancing. Another writ petition being writ petition No. 27141 of 1997, Swarn Lata and others v. Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad and others, was also decided by this Court on 19 -8 -1997 with the direction that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners from their respective residences except in accordance with law. True copy of the judgment dated 19 -8 -1997 in that petition is Annexure -3 to the writ petition. Interim orders in other writ petitions are Annexures -4 and 6 to those writ petitions. The scope of the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in A.C. Agarwal v. Mst. Ramkali, AIR 1968 SC 1.;