Facts
On October 22, 2024, Sonapur Police seized 54 cattle found in two abandoned trucks (Registration Nos. AS-01/RC-6724 and AS-18/AC-5376) under suspicion of illegal transportation and cruelty
Source reference: p.3, para. 4-5An FIR was registered under Sections 303(2)/317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021
Source reference: p.3, para. 5The Petitioner and another individual claimed ownership as bona fide purchasers
Source reference: p.3, para. 7On February 11, 2025, the Trial Court granted interim custody (Zimma) of the cattle to the Petitioner, subject to execution of bonds
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 10However, the Petitioner alleged that upon visiting the designated shelter (Gaushala), the cattle were missing
Source reference: p.4, para. 9A subsequent FIR (Case No. 79/2025) was registered regarding the missing cattle
Source reference: p.5, para. 11The Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking compensation of Rs. 16,20,000 for the loss and a declaration of constitutional tort against the police
Source reference: p.2, para. 2Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation under Article 226 for the loss of seized cattle before ownership and the facts of the loss are established by a competent authority.
Source reference: p.5, para. 12-132. Whether the high court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction when the matter involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.
Source reference: p.5, para. 13Law Applied
The Court primarily considered the scope of its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p.2, para. 2It applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is generally not maintainable when the resolution of the dispute requires the determination of complex factual questions through the leading of evidence
Source reference: p.5, para. 13Furthermore, the court referenced procedural and substantive provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, noting that the statutory investigative process must reach a conclusion (such as a charge-sheet) to establish foundational facts
Source reference: p.3, para. 5; p.5, para. 12Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the writ petition was premature because several critical facts remained unestablished.
Source reference: p.5, para. 12First, the investigation into the original seizure (Case No. 208/2024) had not yet concluded, meaning the Petitioner’s status as a bona fide owner was not legally verified, especially in light of police allegations regarding cattle smuggling and theft
Source reference: p.5, para. 12Second, the investigation into the missing cattle (Case No. 79/2025) was also pending, and no charge-sheet had been submitted to clarify the accountability of the officials or the Gaushala
Source reference: p.5, para. 11-12The Court emphasized that for the reliefs sought—specifically the claim for compensation for a constitutional tort—the court would need to determine multiple factual questions
Source reference: p.5, para. 13Since these determinations require the parties to lead evidence, a writ proceeding is an inappropriate forum
Source reference: p.5, para. 13Holding
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage due to the existence of unresolved factual disputes and ongoing criminal investigations
The Court declined to grant the sought Mandamus for compensation or the declaration of a constitutional tort
Source reference: p.5, para. 13Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, effectively directing the parties to establish their claims through appropriate evidentiary proceedings or upon the conclusion of the pending investigations
Source reference: p.5, para. 13Original Court PDF
Abdul KuddusvsThe State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in