Allahabad High Court says ‘no recovery of beef’ from vehicle, orders UP to compensate owner

“The confiscation proceedings suffer from patent illegality, complete non-application of mind and misinterpretation of the statutory provisions. The impugned orders are based on assumptions unsupported by evidence and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny…Neither any beef nor any remains of slaughtered cow and its progeny were recovered from the petitioner’s vehicle. The foundational facts necessary for drawing the statutory presumption are, therefore, completely absent,” the court said on August 5.

The case arose from allegations that the petitioner was transporting bovine animals from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar for slaughter in the vehicle. The high court, however, held that the confiscation of the vehicle rested on assumptions, finding no evidence that the cattle were being transported outside the state or for slaughter.

Justice Sandeep Jain set aside the vehicle confiscation orders, finding they were based on assumptions unsupported by evidence. (Image enhanced using AI)

Alleged cattle transport

The case dates back to September 19, 2024, when police intercepted the petitioner’s Tata Ace in Chandauli on information that bovine animals were being transported from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar for slaughter. An FIR was registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, following which confiscation proceedings were initiated before the district magistrate.

According to the prosecution, three bovine animals were recovered from the vehicle and were being transported in violation of the Act. The petitioner, however, claimed only one cow and one calf were being transported within Uttar Pradesh after being sold by one Radhey Shyam to Kalluram. He also alleged the vehicle was falsely implicated after the driver refused to pay an illegal gratification.

Rejecting the petitioner’s explanation, the district magistrate confiscated the vehicle on March 6, 2025, relying on the veterinary report, the absence of a transport permit and the statutory presumption under the Cow Slaughter Act. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, upheld the order on November 27, 2025.

Confiscation based on conjectures

The petitioner argued there was “not an iota of evidence” that the cattle were being transported to Bihar or for slaughter, pointing out that neither beef nor remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered and there was no material to show any slaughterhouse was the intended destination. Agreeing with the petitioner, Justice Jain held that the authorities had acted on mere assumptions.

“The entire reasoning adopted by the confiscating authority proceeds on the assumption that since Chandauli shares its border with the neighbouring state of Bihar, the cow and its progeny must necessarily have been intended to be transported in Bihar for slaughter. Such a conclusion is founded merely upon conjectures and surmises and is wholly unsupported by any independent evidence,” the court said.

The court noted that the authorities had failed to produce any statement of the driver, documentary evidence or testimony of any independent witness establishing that the animals were being transported to Bihar. The high court also found that the veterinary report did not support the prosecution’s allegations.

Rejecting the state’s submissions, it added that the claim that the veterinary officer had found the animals in an unsafe or injured condition “is factually incorrect and stands completely belied by the medical report itself.”

Compensation for loss of livelihood

• Whenever the instrumentalities of the state, by arbitrary and illegal exercise of statutory powers, deprive a citizen of his legitimate means of earning his livelihood, the constitutional courts are fully empowered to award compensation in exercise of their public law jurisdiction.
• Compensation in such cases is not merely restitutive but also serves as a constitutional remedy against arbitrary exercise of state power.
• The court noted that the Tata Ace was the petitioner’s sole source of livelihood and that despite the seizure he continued repaying monthly loan instalments until November 2025 before financial hardship forced him to default.
• It observed that the illegal confiscation had deprived him of his only source of income without legal justification.

Accordingly, the court directed the authorities to release the vehicle within one week of production of a certified copy of the judgment, if it is not required in any other case. It further ordered the state to pay compensation at the rate of Rs 20,000 per month from September 19, 2024 until the actual release of the vehicle, besides Rs 25,000 towards mental agony, financial hardship and unnecessary harassment.

The high court also permitted the state government to hold a departmental inquiry and recover the compensation from any officer found responsible for the illegal exercise of statutory powers, strictly in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice.