Allahabad HC Orders UP Govt To Pay ₹2 Lakh For Seizure & Hasty Auction Of Vehicle Over Unproven Cattle Smuggling Claim

Quashing the confiscation orders, the Court directed the State Government to either restore the vehicle or, if it cannot do so, pay an additional Rs. 4 lakh as compensation to the vehicle owner.

As per the prosecution's case, on September 8, 2024, the commercial vehicle owned by Chandrabhan Kumar/petitioner was intercepted by police personnel in the Chandauli district upon receiving a tip-off about cow smuggling.

The police allegedly recovered 10 live bovine animals from the vehicle. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged under the 1955 Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The District Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the vehicle on the allegation that it was carrying the animals for slaughter to the State of Bihar (as it was apprehended near the state border) without a permit, which was claimed to be mandatory under the 1955 Act.

The Commissioner later upheld this confiscation order. Importantly, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner, the State authorities auctioned the vehicle for Rs. 85K, despite the petitioner's claim that the vehicle's market value was more than Rs. 7 lakhs.

Challenging the orders of confiscation and auction, the petitioner moved the HC contending that the state's action was wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.

It was contended that the vehicle was apprehended within the State of Uttar Pradesh and no beef or slaughtered animal remains were recovered therefrom.

Lastly, it was argued that there was no material to infer that the bovine animals were being transported to Bihar for slaughter.

The state, on the other hand, justified the orders by submitting that the petitioner failed to prove that the animals were not being transported to Bihar for slaughter.

It was also submitted that the surrounding circumstances gave rise to a strong presumption against the petitioner and that the confiscation and auction of the vehicle were in accordance with law.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain, however, rejected the state's contentions by noting that transporting bovine animals within the boundaries of UP does not require any legal permit.

The Court observed that mere interception of the vehicle near the Bihar border cannot ipso facto justify such a presumption. It added that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof.

"…for transportation of cows or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh, no permit is required. In absence of reliable evidence that the animals were being transported outside the State for slaughter, the very substratum of the confiscation proceedings collapses", the bench remarked.

The High Court found the auctioning of the vehicle during the pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner 'equally disturbing'.

The bench remarked that such 'arbitrary' action of selling the vehicle for 'such grossly inadequate consideration' showed 'manifest arbitrariness' and had caused grave prejudice to the petitioner as it was his principal source of livelihood.

Regarding the allegations of cruelty towards the animals under Section 5-B of the 1955 Act, which the State argued justified the confiscation, the bench observed that the authorities failed to record any categorical finding of physical injuries that would endanger the lives of the animals or mutilate their bodies.

Hence, the Court held the State's entire action in confiscating the petitioner's vehicle to be arbitrary, illegal, and unsupported by the statutory provisions of the Act of 1955.

Against this backdrop, referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in Nilabati Behera versusState of Orissa (1993) and Indibily Creative Private Ltd versus Government of West Bengal (2019), the High Court thought it fit to grant remedial compensation for the violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner.

The Court directed the State to pay damages of Rs. 15K per month for economic loss from the date of seizure until the actual restoration of the vehicle, alongside RS. 20K rupees for mental agony and harassment.

Alternatively, if the State fails to restore the vehicle, it must pay the depreciated vehicle cost of Rs. 4 Lakh in addition to the monthly damages calculated for a capped 12-month period.

Notably, the Court granted the State the liberty to realise these awarded damages directly from the concerned employees and officials who authorised the arbitrary action.