The Allahabad High Court has quashed the confiscation of a transport vehicle in a cow slaughter case, holding that a permit under the Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act is required only where cows or their progeny are transported from Uttar Pradesh to another State. The Court held that there was no material establishing such inter-State transportation in the present case.
Justice Sandeep Jain was hearing a petition filed by Vinod Kumar Singh, whose Tata Ace Gold vehicle was seized on September 19, 2024, after police allegedly suspected that bovine animals were being transported from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar for slaughter. The District Magistrate, Chandauli subsequently ordered confiscation of the vehicle, which was upheld by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division.
The High Court examined Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act and noted that the provision requires a permit when cattle are transported from within Uttar Pradesh to a place outside the State. However, the record did not establish that the animals recovered from the vehicle were actually being transported outside Uttar Pradesh.
Relying on its earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that no permit is required for transportation of cows or their progeny within Uttar Pradesh. In the absence of material showing inter-State transportation, the vehicle could not be treated as having been used in violation of the Act. The Court therefore held that the police had no jurisdiction to seize and confiscate the vehicle on the basis of the material available.
The Court further found that the confiscation orders were based on assumptions unsupported by evidence and accordingly quashed the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner.
The Court also took into account the financial hardship caused by the illegal confiscation. It noted that the vehicle was the petitioner’s sole source of livelihood and that he had purchased it through financial assistance while remaining liable to pay monthly loan instalments of ₹12,599. Although he continued servicing the loan for some time after the seizure, he was eventually unable to do so because of the loss of income.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Court observed that the right to livelihood forms part of Article 21 and that constitutional courts can award monetary compensation for infringement of fundamental rights. It accordingly directed the authorities to release the vehicle and pay the petitioner ₹20,000 per month from September 19, 2024 until the actual date of release, along with ₹25,000 towards mental agony, financial hardship and avoidable litigation.
The Court also left it open to the State Government to conduct a departmental inquiry and, if any officer was found responsible for the illegal exercise of statutory power, recover the compensation amount from the officer concerned in accordance with law and after following principles of natural justice.
