The Allahabad High Court has set aside the confiscation of a transport vehicle allegedly used for carrying bovine animals, calling the State’s action “arbitrary” and unsupported by law. The Court also directed payment of compensation to the vehicle owner for financial loss and harassment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Chandrabhan Kumar challenging orders passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, and later affirmed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division.
According to the case record, on September 8, 2024, police intercepted a vehicle near the Bihar border in Chandauli district. Authorities claimed that ten bovine animals-six heifers, two cows, one bull, and one bullock-were being transported without a permit, allegedly for slaughter outside Uttar Pradesh.
Following this, the vehicle was seized, and confiscation proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The District Magistrate ordered confiscation, which was later upheld by the Commissioner.
The petitioner consistently denied the allegations, stating that no such illegal transport was taking place and that the seizure was unjustified.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that:
- The vehicle was intercepted within Uttar Pradesh, not outside it
- No slaughtered animal or beef was recovered
- There was no concrete evidence proving transportation for slaughter
- The confiscation was based only on assumptions
It was also pointed out that during the pendency of proceedings, the authorities auctioned the vehicle for ₹85,000-far below its actual value-causing severe financial loss.
On the other hand, the State defended the action, arguing that circumstances suggested illegal transport and justified confiscation under the law.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeals Seeking Higher Land Compensation in Kadapa Case
The bench of Justice Sandeep Jain carefully examined the legal provisions and previous rulings on the issue.
The Court noted that under the law, a permit is required only when animals are transported outside the State. In this case, there was no clear evidence to establish that the animals were actually being taken to another State for slaughter.
“The mere fact that the vehicle was intercepted near the border cannot, by itself, justify the presumption of illegal transport,” the Court observed.
Importantly, the Court emphasized:
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof.”
The bench further found that:
- No evidence of cruelty to animals was established
- No injuries or conditions endangering the animals’ lives were proven
- Authorities failed to justify confiscation under statutory requirements
The Court also took serious note of the vehicle’s auction during pending proceedings, calling it a “disturbing” and unfair action.
The Court highlighted that confiscation affects a person’s right to property and livelihood, which must be protected under the Constitution.
It observed that depriving someone of their vehicle-especially when it is their primary source of income-without proper legal basis is a serious violation.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed:
- The District Magistrate’s order dated March 22, 2025
- The Commissioner’s order dated November 27, 2025
The Court directed the State to compensate the petitioner as follows:
- ₹15,000 per month for economic loss from September 8, 2024
- ₹20,000 for mental agony
Additionally:
- If the vehicle is restored, compensation will continue until restoration
- If not restored, the petitioner will receive ₹4 lakh as depreciated vehicle value along with limited damages
“The impugned orders are hereby quashed,” the Court concluded, directing payment within 15 days.
Case Details
Case Title: Chandrabhan Kumar vs State of U.P. & Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28877 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sandeep Jain
Decision Date: April 30, 2026
