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

Recently, Justice Sandeep Jain quashed the confiscation order, holding that the authorities had proceeded merely on assumptions without producing any evidence to establish that the bullocks were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh or for slaughter.

The Court observed that the authorities had presumed that the animals were intended to be taken to West Bengal for slaughter simply because Mirzapur shares a border with the neighbouring State of Bihar.

Describing the inference as baseless, the Court said:

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

It further observed that the mere existence of an inter-State or international boundary cannot be treated as 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 said.

The petitioner, Tej Prakash, had challenged the seizure and subsequent confiscation of his DCM Eicher vehicle, which was intercepted by the Mirzapur police in September 2023 while transporting two bullocks. The authorities alleged that the transportation violated the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

Appearing for the petitioner, his counsel argued that there was no evidence to establish that the bullocks were being taken to West Bengal for slaughter or that they had been subjected to cruelty during transportation.

Accepting the submissions, the Court noted that the authorities had failed to produce any material indicating the intended destination of the vehicle. It also rejected the allegation of animal cruelty, pointing out that neither of the two bullocks had been examined by a 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 Court observed.

The Court further clarified that permission for transporting a cow or its progeny is required only when the animals are proposed to be taken outside Uttar Pradesh. The applicable rules do not mandate any permit for transportation within 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," it said.

The Court also noted that neither beef nor any remains of slaughtered cattle had been recovered from the petitioner's vehicle. Consequently, the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory presumption were absent.

Finding that the confiscating authority had overlooked the applicable legal position, the Court held that the proceedings suffered from patent illegality, non-application of mind and misinterpretation of statutory provisions.

While directing the release of the vehicle, the Court ordered the State government to pay compensation at the rate of ₹40,000 per month from September 18, 2023, the date of seizure, until the vehicle's actual release.

The Court observed that the illegal confiscation had deprived the petitioner of his only source of livelihood for a substantial period, despite the fact that he had purchased the commercial vehicle through a loan and was required to continue paying monthly instalments.

Taking into account the nature of the vehicle, the loan repayments and its ordinary earning capacity, the Court assessed the petitioner's monthly loss of income at ₹40,000.

Additionally, the State was directed to pay ₹25,000 towards compensation for the mental agony, financial hardship and harassment suffered by the petitioner.

The Court also clarified that the government would be at liberty to recover the compensation paid from the officers found responsible for the illegal confiscation, following an appropriate departmental inquiry.

Advocates Ashish Jaiswal and Sushil Kumar Mishra appeared for the petitioner.