The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay more than ₹15 lakh to a vehicle owner whose commercial vehicle was seized and confiscated over allegations of transporting two bullocks for slaughter. The Court found that the action was based on assumptions rather than evidence, leaving the owner without his primary source of income for an extended period.
In Tej Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others, Justice Sandeep Jain held that the authorities could not presume that cattle were being transported for slaughter merely because the vehicle was intercepted in Mirzapur, a district bordering Bihar.
“The existence of an international or inter-State boundary by itself cannot constitute proof of illegal transportation,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasised that any conclusion about the intended destination or purpose of transportation must be supported by concrete evidence. Merely intercepting a vehicle in a border district cannot justify an assumption that the animals were being taken outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter.
₹40,000 monthly compensation for loss of income
The Court quashed the confiscation order and directed the authorities to release the vehicle. It further ordered the State to pay compensation at the rate of ₹40,000 per month, calculated from September 18, 2023, the date of seizure, until the vehicle’s actual release.
The Court noted that the petitioner had purchased the DCM Eicher vehicle through a loan and was deprived of his principal means of livelihood due to the State’s unlawful action.
Considering the vehicle’s commercial nature, the loan repayments and its ordinary earning capacity, the Court assessed the owner’s monthly income loss at ₹40,000.
An additional ₹25,000 was awarded for the mental anguish, financial distress and harassment caused by the illegal confiscation.
The Court also made it clear that the State could recover the compensation paid from the officials responsible for the unlawful action, subject to an appropriate departmental inquiry.
No evidence of slaughter or animal cruelty
The case arose after Mirzapur police seized the petitioner’s vehicle while it was transporting two bullocks. The authorities alleged that the transportation violated the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Challenging the confiscation, the petitioner argued that there was no evidence to establish that the animals were being taken to West Bengal for slaughter or that they had been subjected to cruelty during transportation.
The High Court found that the authorities had failed to produce any material indicating the vehicle’s intended destination.
It also rejected the allegation of animal cruelty, noting that the bullocks had not been examined by a veterinary doctor.
In the absence of such evidence, the Court held that cruelty could not be presumed merely from the alleged manner in which the animals were transported.
Permit not required for transportation within Uttar Pradesh
The Court further examined the applicable rules governing the transportation of cows and their progeny.
It observed that a permit was required only when the animals were proposed to be transported outside Uttar Pradesh. The relevant rules did not mandate a permit for transportation within the State.
Since the authorities had failed to establish that the bullocks were being taken beyond Uttar Pradesh, the confiscation could not be justified on the ground of a missing permit.
The Court also noted that neither beef nor the remains of slaughtered cattle had been recovered from the vehicle.
It concluded that the essential facts required to invoke the statutory presumption were absent, rendering the confiscation proceedings illegal and demonstrating a failure to properly apply the law.
The Court accordingly set aside the confiscation order and granted relief to the vehicle owner.
The judgment was delivered on November 3.
Advocates Ashish Jaiswal and Sushil Kumar Mishra appeared for the petitioner.