What to do when Hostel is sealed under Section 133 CrPC/ Section 152 BNSS

In a city like Kota — renowned for its educational institutions and coaching centers — hostel management carries significant responsibility. Yet, in the aftermath of tragic events involving students, the legal response has started to raise deeper concerns. One such issue involves the sealing of private hostels under Section 133 of the CrPC or Section 152 of the new BNSS. These actions, though aimed at deterrence, have also triggered legal debates regarding fairness and constitutional balance.

Many building owners and hostel operators find themselves blindsided — not just emotionally but legally — when notices are served, and their properties sealed without adequate hearing. In such situations, seeking guidance from an experienced advocate in Kota is not just helpful — it is essential.

Understanding Section 133 CrPC and Section 152 BNSS

Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) allows a Magistrate to take preventive action when a public nuisance is reported. It is not a punitive section. It mandates the Magistrate to seek preliminary evidence, issue conditional orders, and most crucially — allow the person a chance to respond. Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), replaced the CrPC, mirrors this function with minor structural updates.

However, the intended scope of these provisions is often misunderstood or misapplied. In current practice, we are witnessing actions where entire hostels are sealed pre-emptively, with minimal documentation and no opportunity for the owner to be heard. These laws were designed to prevent public harm — not to penalize private hostel operators without procedural safeguards.

Why Are Hostels Being Sealed in Kota?

After distressing incidents, local authorities have begun seizing entire hostel properties under the premise that they lack anti-hanging ceiling fans or other safety measures. This is done ostensibly to prevent future harm, but the legality of these steps is questionable, especially when actions are taken:

• Without a judicial order.
• Without prior notice or hearing.
• Without verifying whether the building is actually a public nuisance.
• Even when majority rooms already comply with safety guidelines.

The Legal Dilemma: Public Welfare vs Private Rights

While public safety is a legitimate concern, it cannot override natural justice. The seizure of private property without a hearing, and in the absence of notified legal obligations (such as a gazetted rule mandating safety installations), may not stand judicial scrutiny.

Therein lies the need to consult lawyers in Kota who can assess the validity of such actions and provide remedies through appropriate legal channels.

Key Legal Issues That Need to Be Highlighted

• Non-Applicability to Private Property: Section 133 CrPC / Section 152 BNSS applies to public nuisances. A private hostel is not a public place in itself unless proven otherwise.
• Lack of Gazette Notification: Guidelines, unless notified, don’t carry the weight of enforceable law.
• Violation of Natural Justice: Any administrative order passed without giving the opportunity of being heard violates basic constitutional principles.
• Absence of Immediate Danger: Unless a nuisance or danger is immediate and real, sealing cannot be justified as a preventive measure.

7 Strong Reasons to Consult an Advocate in Kota

• Interpretation of Section 133 CrPC: Every notice is not legally sound. An advocate can examine whether the premises truly fall under the jurisdiction of “public nuisance” as required under Section 133.
• Understanding BNSS Implications : With new legal codes like the BNSS coming into play, only a practicing lawyer in Kota can bridge the gap between old statutes and current interpretations.
• Assessing Procedural Fairness : Many actions taken under the guise of “emergency” may bypass the fundamental right to be heard. Advocates ensure natural justice is protected.
• Preventing Financial Losses : Sealing hostels causes revenue loss, building deterioration, and staff layoffs. Legal intervention can help prevent or reverse such seizures.
• Identifying Lack of Legal Notification : Not all administrative “guidelines” have the force of law. A lawyer will examine if the guidelines cited have been notified via the official Gazette.
• Addressing Bias or Harassment : In some cases, complaints may stem from vendetta or false motives. An experienced lawyer can expose and challenge such misuse of authority.
• Filing Writ Petitions or Appeals : If local remedies fail, only a trained advocate can help escalate the matter to the High Court under Article 226 for urgent relief.

Hostel Operators: Don’t Face It Alone

It’s natural to feel helpless when a building is seized, and your business disrupted overnight. But the law exists not only to penalize, but to protect legitimate rights. Every hostel operator in Kota must remember:

“No administrative authority can be above the Constitution.”

If you’ve received a notice under Section 133 CrPC or Section 152 BNSS, or your hostel has been sealed, the first step is to immediately consult an advocate in Kota. Legal expertise can mean the difference between temporary fear and permanent loss.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

We live in emotionally sensitive times, and public institutions must show compassion. However, compassion cannot replace constitutional compliance. Seizing buildings in a blanket fashion — without hearings, without clear law, and without justification — is not justifiable.

If you’re a hostel owner or building operator caught in this storm, remember:

Your silence could cost you your rights. Your voice, backed by law, could restore them.

Present article is for educational purposes alone, please take independent Legal advice from a professionals

For More Information Contact Advocate Prakhar Gupta