English
English
English
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation to cattle owner in an alleged cattle smuggling case. (Img: X)
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay compensation exceeding Rs 15 lakh to a vehicle owner whose commercial vehicle was seized and confiscated by the police on suspicion of transporting cattle for slaughter, despite the absence of evidence substantiating the allegation.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain, while allowing a petition filed by Tej Prakash in Tej Prakash vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others, held that the confiscation proceedings were legally unsustainable as the authorities had failed to establish that the two bullocks found in the vehicle were being transported for slaughter or taken outside Uttar Pradesh.
The Court directed the State to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 40,000 per month, calculated from September 18, 2023, the date of seizure, until the vehicle's actual release. It also awarded an additional Rs 25,000 towards the mental agony, financial hardship and harassment suffered by the petitioner.
The case arose after Mirzapur police seized the petitioner's DCM Eicher vehicle while it was carrying two bullocks. The authorities alleged that the transportation violated the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The vehicle was subsequently confiscated on the allegation that the cattle were being transported to West Bengal for slaughter.
Challenging the action, the petitioner argued that there was no evidence to establish that the animals were intended for slaughter or that the vehicle was being taken outside Uttar Pradesh. He also disputed the allegation that the bullocks had been transported in a cruel or inhumane manner.
Accepting the petitioner's submissions, the High Court observed that the authorities had failed to place any material on record demonstrating that the vehicle was headed outside Uttar Pradesh or that the bullocks were intended for slaughter.
The Court noted that the confiscation decision appeared to have been founded on the assumption that since Mirzapur is situated close to the neighbouring State of Bihar, the cattle must have been destined for West Bengal.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Court held that such an inference, unsupported by independent evidence, was purely conjectural. Mere geographical proximity to an inter-State boundary could not establish unlawful transportation.
It emphasised that a presumption of illegal transportation could not be drawn without credible material indicating that the vehicle was being taken beyond Uttar Pradesh or that the animals were intended for slaughter.
The Court also found no merit in the allegation that the animals had been transported in violation of animal welfare requirements. It pointed out that neither of the two bullocks had been examined by a veterinary doctor to determine whether they had been subjected to cruelty or transported in an inhumane manner.
Further, the Court noted that neither beef nor any remains of a slaughtered cow or its progeny had been recovered from the vehicle. Clarifying the applicable legal position, the Court observed that the requirement of obtaining permission for transporting a cow or its progeny arises when the transportation is intended beyond the territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant rules do not mandate such permission for transportation within the State.
Holding that the foundational requirements for invoking the statutory presumption were absent, the Court concluded that the confiscation proceedings suffered from illegality, non-application of mind and an erroneous interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions. Consequently, it quashed the confiscation order and directed the authorities to release the vehicle.
While determining the compensation, the Court took into account that the petitioner had purchased the commercial vehicle through a loan and continued to bear the burden of monthly instalments despite being deprived of its use and earning capacity.
Considering the nature of the vehicle and its ordinary commercial earning potential, the Court assessed the petitioner's monthly financial loss at Rs 40,000. Accordingly, the State was directed to pay compensation at this rate from September 18, 2023, until the vehicle's actual release, along with Rs 25,000 towards the harassment and mental agony suffered by the petitioner.
The Court further clarified that the State would be entitled to recover the compensation paid to the petitioner from the officials responsible for the illegal confiscation, subject to an appropriate departmental inquiry. Advocates Ashish Jaiswal and Sushil Kumar Mishra appeared for the petitioner.
