Allahabad High Court orders ₹15 lakh compensation for vehicle seizure over cattle slaughter suspicion

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay over ₹15 lakh in compensation to a man whose vehicle was seized by Mirzapur police in 2023 over a suspicion that it was being used to transport two bullocks to West Bengal for slaughter [Tej Prakash v State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others].

Justice Sandeep Jain found that vehicle was seized and subsequently confiscated only on an assumption that since Mirzapur adjoins the neighbouring State of Bihar, the cattle must have been intended to be transported to the West Bengal for slaughter.

"Such a conclusion is founded merely upon conjectures and surmises and is wholly unsupported by any independent evidence," the Court said.

It added that the existence of an international or inter-State boundary by itself cannot constitute proof of illegal transportation.

"Unless there exists positive and cogent evidence indicating that the destination of the vehicle was outside the State of Uttar Pradesh or that the transportation was intended for slaughter, no such presumption can legally be drawn merely because the vehicle happened to be intercepted in a border district," the Court further said.

While quashing the confiscation order, the Court directed the release of the vehicle. Further, the Court ordered the State to pay a compensation at the rate of ₹40,000 per month from September 18, 2023 (when the vehicle was seized), till the date of actual release of the vehicle.

The Court said that the State's illegal action had deprived the vehicle owner, who had obtained the vehicle on a loan, of his only source of income for a substantial period without any legal justification. 

"Having regard to the facts of the present case, the nature of the vehicle, the admitted repayment of substantial monthly loan installments and the ordinary earning capacity of a commercial transport vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's monthly loss of income can reasonably be assessed at Rs.40,000/- per month," the bench said.

The Court also directed the State to pay an additional compensation of ₹25,000 to the petitioner for the mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment suffered by him on account of the illegal confiscation.

The Court clarified that the State can recover the compensation amounts from the officers who are found responsible for the illegal confiscation following an appropriate departmental inquiry.

The judgment was passed in the case of one Tej Prakash whose DCM Eicher vehicle was seized and later confiscated after it was found transporting two bullocks.

The authorities said the transportation was taking place in contravention of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Challenging the claim, his counsel argued that there was no evidence to show that the animals were being transported to West Bengal for the purpose of slaughter or that any cruelty was inflicted upon them during transportation.

In the judgment delivered on November 3, the Court found that the authorities failed to produce any material whatsoever to even indicate the intended destination of the vehicle.

The Court also rejected the allegation of animal cruelty, observing that the two bullocks were never examined by any veterinary doctor.

"In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed, merely on the basis of the manner of transportation alleged by the authorities, that the animals were being transported in a cruel manner in the petitioner's vehicle," the bench said.

The Court also observed that a permission for the transportation of a cow and its progeny is required only where they are proposed to be transported outside Uttar Pradesh. However, there was nothing to prove that the bullocks transported in the petitioner's vehicle was being taken outside the State.

"The authorities have failed to produce any material whatsoever indicating the intended destination of the vehicle... The Rule does not require any permit for transportation of cow and its progeny from one place to another within the territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh," the Court said.

The confiscating authority completely overlooked this settled legal position, it observed.

"Admittedly, in the present case, neither any beef nor any remains of slaughtered cow and its progeny were recovered from the petitioner's vehicle. The foundational facts necessary for drawing the statutory presumption are, therefore, completely absent... Viewed from any angle, this Court finds that the confiscation proceedings suffer from patent illegality, complete non-application of mind and misinterpretation of the statutory provisions," the Court added, while granting the vehicle owner relief.

Advocates Ashish Jaiswal and Sushil Kumar Mishra represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]