Allahabad HC quashes vehicle confiscation, orders UP govt to pay ₹15 lakh

Millat Times Desk

09 November 2026 (Publish: 02:28 PM IST)

0

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay more than ₹15 lakh in compensation to a man whose commercial vehicle was seized and confiscated by Mirzapur police in September 2023 on suspicion that it was being used to transport two bullocks to West Bengal for slaughter.

In its November 3 judgment in Tej Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others, Justice Sandeep Jain ruled that the authorities had confiscated the vehicle without sufficient evidence to establish that the animals were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh or intended for slaughter.

The Court observed that the authorities had assumed that the bullocks were being taken to West Bengal for slaughter merely because Mirzapur is located near the neighbouring state of Bihar.

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

It further clarified that the existence of an interstate or international boundary cannot, by itself, establish that an illegal activity has taken place.

“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 said.

While quashing the confiscation order and directing the authorities to release the vehicle, the Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to compensate the petitioner at the rate of ₹40,000 per month from September 18, 2023, the date of seizure, until the vehicle’s actual release.

The Court noted that the illegal confiscation had deprived the vehicle owner of his primary source of income for a substantial period, despite his continuing obligation to repay the loan taken to purchase the vehicle.

Considering the nature of the vehicle, the monthly loan instalments and its potential earning capacity as a commercial transport vehicle, the Court assessed the petitioner’s monthly financial loss at ₹40,000.

In addition to the monthly compensation, the State government was directed to pay ₹25,000 for the mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment suffered by the petitioner.

The Court also clarified that the government could recover the compensation paid from the officials found responsible for the illegal confiscation after an appropriate departmental inquiry.

The case concerned Tej Prakash’s DCM Eicher vehicle, which was seized by the authorities while transporting two bullocks. The authorities alleged that the transportation violated the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

Challenging the seizure and subsequent confiscation, the petitioner’s lawyers argued that there was no evidence to establish that the animals were being taken to West Bengal for slaughter. They also maintained that no cruelty had been inflicted upon the animals during transportation.

The High Court found that the authorities had failed to produce any material establishing the intended destination of the vehicle.

It also rejected the allegation of animal cruelty, noting that the two bullocks had not even been examined by a veterinary doctor.

The Court observed that cruelty could not be presumed merely on the basis of the manner of transportation alleged by the authorities.

The High Court further examined the legal provisions governing the transportation of cows and their progeny under the relevant rules.

It observed that permission for transporting a cow or its progeny is required only when the animals are proposed to be taken outside Uttar Pradesh. However, the authorities had failed to establish that the two bullocks in the petitioner’s vehicle were being transported beyond the state’s boundaries.

“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 observed.

The Court said that the confiscating authority had completely overlooked this legal position.

It also noted that neither beef nor any remains of slaughtered cows or their progeny had been recovered from the vehicle. Therefore, the essential facts required to invoke the statutory presumption were absent.

Finding serious legal errors in the confiscation proceedings, the Court concluded that the authorities had acted without properly applying their minds and had misinterpreted the relevant legal provisions.

Advocates Ashish Jaiswal and Sushil Kumar Mishra appeared on behalf of the petitioner.