The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed the confiscation order of an illegally confiscated vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as it noted that the authorities proceeded entirely on assumptions that the bovine animals were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain noted that neither any beef nor remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered from the vehicle and there was no material whatsoever to show that the animals were being transported to Bihar or to any slaughterhouse.

The Court termed the confiscation proceedings as "patently illegal", suffering from "complete non-application of mind" and "misinterpretation of the statutory provisions".

Apart from setting aside the confiscation orders, the Court also directed the State Authorities to compensate the petitioner at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month from the date of seizure of the vehicle (September 19, 2024) until its actual release.

Additionally, ₹25,000/- has also been awarded towards mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment.

As per the Court's direction, the compensation works out to nearly ₹4.75 lakh as of the date of order (August 5, 2026), subject to increase until the vehicle is released.

Case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, the police intercepted the petitioner's vehicle in Chandauli district on September 19, 2024. It allegedly recovered 3 bovine animals (2 cows and 1 calf), which, it was claimed, were being transported in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1955 with the intention of taking them to the State of Bihar for slaughter.

An FIR was registered under Sections 3, 5-A, 5-B, and 8 of the 1955 Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, following which confiscation proceedings were initiated.

The petitioner denied the allegations as he argued that only 1 cow and 1 calf were being transported within UP and that there was no intention whatsoever to transport the animals to Bihar or for slaughter.

He further alleged that the vehicle had been falsely implicated after the driver refused to pay illegal gratification demanded by police personnel.

After the DM ordered confiscation of the vehicle and the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, upheld that decision in appeal, the petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court.

It was argued that the illegal confiscation of the vehicle has not only deprived the petitioner of his principal means of livelihood but has also subjected him to severe financial distress, mental agony, and economic hardship. Hence, the compensation was also claimed.

High Court's observations

Perusing the case records, the Court found that the entire reasoning of the confiscating authority rested on the assumption that since Chandauli shares a border with Bihar, the animals must have been intended to be transported outside the State for slaughter.

Rejecting this approach of the authorities, the Court observed that the existence of an international or inter-State boundary by itself cannot constitute proof of illegal transportation.

It noted that the authorities "failed to produce any material whatsoever indicating the intended destination of the vehicle. Neither any statement of the driver nor any documentary evidence nor any independent witness has been relied upon to establish that the animals were being transported to the State of Bihar".

The Court further recorded that no beef or remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered from the vehicle.

Significantly, the veterinary report relied upon by the authorities itself showed that 1 cow and 1 calf were medically examined and both were found healthy. The report did not record that the animals had sustained any injuries or were being transported in a manner indicating cruelty within the meaning of the law.

Accordingly, the Court held that the State's submission that the veterinary officer had found the animals injured or transported in unsafe conditions stood completely belied by the medical report itself.

The Court also held that the confiscating authorities had fundamentally misread Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Rule 16 of the 1964 Rules.

Justice Jain reiterated the settled legal position that a permit is required only where cows or their progeny are transported from any place within Uttar Pradesh to a place outside the State.

The bench also noted that the 1955 Act does not require any permit for the transportation of bovine animals within Uttar Pradesh.

The Court further held that the statutory presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the Act was wrongly invoked.

It explained that such a presumption arises only in circumstances specifically provided under the statute, particularly where beef or cow remains are recovered and laboratory examination confirms the prohibited substance.

Since neither beef nor remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered in the present case, the Bench found those foundational facts to be completely absent and the burden never shifted to the petitioner.

Against this backdrop, while setting aside the confiscation orders, the Court also noted that the vehicle was his sole source of livelihood and had been purchased through a loan which had monthly instalments of ₹12,599.

Although he continued repaying the loan for several months after the seizure, he ultimately defaulted because the continued confiscation deprived him of his income.

The High Court observed that constitutional courts are empowered to award compensation in public law where arbitrary State action results in a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood under Article 21.

Having regard to the nature of the vehicle, the admitted repayment of loan instalments and the ordinary earning capacity of a commercial transport vehicle, the Court assessed the petitioner's monthly loss of income at ₹20,000.

Accordingly, it directed payment of compensation at that rate from September 19, 2024, till the actual release of the vehicle. It also awarded ₹25,000 towards mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment.

The Court also permitted the State Government to conduct a departmental inquiry and recover the compensation amount from officers found responsible for the illegal exercise of statutory power, in accordance with law.

Case Title - Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541

Click Here To Read/Download Order