Illegal cow-transport vehicle confiscation quashed; Allahabad High Court orders ₹20,000 monthly compensation for lost livelihood plus ₹25,000 for harassment

The petitioner was the registered owner of Tata Ace Gold Diesel vehicle No. UP-65-KT-4942.

On 19 September 2024, police at Police Station Shahabganj, District Chandauli, intercepted the vehicle on suspicion that bovine animals were being transported from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar for slaughter. The prosecution alleged recovery of two cows and one calf and registered Case Crime No. 100 of 2024 under Sections 3, 5-A, 5-B and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Confiscation proceedings were initiated under Section 5-A(7) of the 1955 Act.

The District Magistrate, Chandauli, nevertheless confiscated the vehicle on 6 March 2025, principally relying on the veterinary report, the alleged absence of a transport permit, and the statutory presumption under Section 5-A(10).

The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 27 November 2025.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought release of the vehicle and compensation for loss of livelihood and mental harassment.

Whether the authorities could confiscate the petitioner’s vehicle under Section 5-A(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, without legally reliable material establishing that the animals were being transported from Uttar Pradesh to a place outside the State or for slaughter?

Whether a permit under Section 5-A(1) of the 1955 Act and Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1964 was required for transportation of bovine animals within Uttar Pradesh?

Whether the statutory presumption under Section 5-A(10) could be invoked in the absence of recovery and confirmation of beef or cow remains?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to constitutional compensation for loss of livelihood, financial hardship and mental agony caused by the illegal confiscation of his vehicle?

The Court applied Sections 5-A(1), 5-A(7) and 5-A(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1964.

Section 5-A(1) requires a permit only when a cow, bull or bullock is transported from a place within Uttar Pradesh to a place outside the State; consequently, no permit is required for intra-State transportation.

Section 5-A(7) permits confiscation only where the vehicle is used for transporting beef, cow or progeny in violation of the Act or Rules; confiscation is therefore conditional and cannot be automatic.

The presumption under Section 5-A(10) arises only after the statutory foundational facts—particularly proof and confirmation of beef or cow remains—are established.

Relying on Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P., Mohd. Shakib v. State of U.P., Kaliya v. State of U.P., and Munib v. State of U.P., the Court held that intra-State transportation does not require a permit and that arbitrary confiscation infringes property and occupational rights under Articles 300-A and 19(1)(g).

For compensation, the Court relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, and Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of West Bengal, recognising compensation under Articles 21 and 226 as a public-law remedy for established infringement of fundamental rights.

The Court found that the confiscation orders were based on conjecture that, because Chandauli borders Bihar, the animals must have been destined for Bihar and slaughter.

No statement of the driver, documentary material, independent witness, or other evidence established an out-of-State destination.

The veterinary report examined one cow and one calf and found both healthy; it did not record injury, mutilation or transportation in a life-endangering condition, thereby undermining the reliance on Section 5-B.

Since the record did not establish transportation outside Uttar Pradesh, the permit requirement under Section 5-A(1) and Rule 16 was not attracted.

Further, no beef or cow remains were recovered or confirmed by a competent authority or laboratory, so the essential foundation for invoking Section 5-A(10) was absent and the burden never shifted to the petitioner.

The confiscation was therefore without statutory basis and violated the petitioner’s property and livelihood-related constitutional protections.

As the vehicle was the petitioner’s asserted and substantially undisputed source of livelihood, and loan records showed continuing financial obligations, the Court assessed loss of income at Rs.20,000 per month and awarded additional compensation for mental agony, harassment and avoidable litigation.

The respondents were directed to release vehicle No. UP-65-KT-4942 forthwith, if it was not required in any other case, preferably within one week of production of the certified judgment.

The State was directed to pay the petitioner compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month from 19 September 2024, the date of seizure, until actual release of the vehicle, together with Rs.25,000 towards mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment.

The Court further permitted the State to conduct a departmental inquiry and recover the compensation from responsible officers in accordance with law and natural justice.