The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay compensation exceeding ₹15 lakh to a vehicle owner whose commercial vehicle was seized and subsequently confiscated on suspicion of transporting cattle for slaughter, without sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation.
Justice Sandeep Jain, while allowing a petition filed by Tej Prakash in Tej Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others, held that the confiscation proceedings were unsustainable in law as the authorities had failed to establish that the two bullocks found in the vehicle were being transported for slaughter or taken beyond the territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court directed the State to compensate the petitioner at the rate of ₹40,000 per month, calculated from September 18, 2023, when the vehicle was seized, until its actual release. It further awarded ₹25,000 towards the mental agony, harassment and financial hardship occasioned by the authorities’ action.
The case originated when Mirzapur police intercepted and 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. Subsequently, the vehicle was confiscated on the premise that the animals were being transported to West Bengal for slaughter.
Challenging the confiscation, the petitioner contended that the authorities had proceeded without any credible evidence to establish either the intended destination of the animals or their alleged transportation for slaughter. He also disputed the allegation that the bullocks had been subjected to cruelty during transportation.
Finding merit in the petitioner’s challenge, the High Court observed that the authorities had failed to produce any material demonstrating that the vehicle was destined for a place outside Uttar Pradesh or that the animals were intended for slaughter.
The Court took particular note of the reasoning underlying the confiscation order, which appeared to presume that the bullocks were being transported to West Bengal merely because Mirzapur is situated close to the neighbouring State of Bihar. It rejected this inference as speculative, observing that geographical proximity to an inter-State boundary could not, by itself, constitute evidence of unlawful transportation.
The Court further underscored that a statutory presumption of illegal transportation could not be invoked in the absence of material establishing the requisite circumstances. The authorities could not sustain confiscation proceedings on conjecture or assumptions unsupported by evidence.
The allegation of cruelty to the animals also failed to find favour with the Court. It noted that neither of the two bullocks had been examined by a veterinary doctor to ascertain whether they had been transported in an inhumane manner or subjected to cruelty. Significantly, no beef or remains of any slaughtered cow or its progeny had been recovered from the vehicle.
The Court also clarified the scope of the applicable transportation requirements, observing that permission for transporting a cow or its progeny is necessary when such transportation is intended beyond the territorial boundaries of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant rules do not impose an equivalent permit requirement for transportation within the State.
In view of the absence of evidence satisfying the statutory requirements, the Court held that the confiscation proceedings were vitiated by illegality, non-application of mind and an erroneous interpretation of the governing legal provisions. It accordingly quashed the confiscation order and directed the authorities to release the vehicle.
While determining the compensation, the Court took into consideration the fact that the petitioner had purchased the commercial vehicle through a loan and was compelled to continue meeting his financial obligations even as the prolonged seizure deprived him of the opportunity to use it for earning his livelihood.
Taking into account the vehicle’s commercial utility and its potential earning capacity, the Court assessed the petitioner’s monthly loss at ₹40,000. It directed the State to calculate and pay compensation accordingly for the entire period of wrongful detention, in addition to the ₹25,000 awarded for the mental harassment and distress suffered by him.
The Court also left it open to the State government 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.
The judgment was delivered on November 3, 2026.
The post Allahabad High Court orders UP Government to pay over ₹15 lakh compensation for illegal seizure of vehicle on cattle slaughter suspicion appeared first on India Legal.