The failure to provide a vehicle owner a reasonable opportunity to be heard before confiscation violates statutory requirements, allowing for judicial review despite statutory appeal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.:-

1. Seeking the quashing of the confiscation order passed by the Competent Authority (SDM) and the dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner, the vehicle’s owner, came up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC, 1973.

2. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record, and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

3. Facts have been taken from the reply dated 16.08.2024 filed by the concerned DySP, which reads as follows: -

“2. That, the brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the seizure of truck bearing registration number HR-55AE/3242 loaded with Gauvansh, in the abovementioned FIR against Azad son of Deenu. It is further submitted that 17 Gauvansh (13 Ox and 4 Cow) were found loaded in the alleged truck. Out of them, two had expired. They were allegedly being transported for the purpose of slaughtering. The vehicle alongwith Gauvansh was taken into police possession. The cows and bulls were released to Hansi Gaushala on interim custody. The registered owner of the truck was discovered to be Shakeel Ahmed (Present Petitioner) son of Mahmood resident of Badka. After seizure of the vehicle, the State moved an application before the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hansi for the confiscation of the truck bearing registration number HR- 55AE/3242 and the same was allowed by Learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Hansi.”

4. The authorized Police officer seized the vehicle mentioned above under Section 17 of The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as HGSG Act). A perusal of the application for confiscation of the above-said vehicle (Annexure P-2) reveals that Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar conducted the investigation and seized the vehicle. After that, he filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hansi, to confiscate the vehicle.

5. S. 17(1) & (2) of HGSG Act read as follows:

17. (1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, any vehicle used in the commission of such offence shall be liable to be confiscated by a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or any person authorized in this behalf by the Government.

(2) Where any vehicle referred to in sub-section (1) is confiscated in connection with the commission of any offence punishable under this Act, a report about the same, without unreasonable delay, be made by the person seizing it to the competent authority and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for commission of such offence, the competent authority, having jurisdiction over the area where the said vehicle was confiscated, may, if satisfied that the said vehicle was used for commission of offence under this Act, order confiscation of the said vehicle: Provided that before ordering confiscation of the said vehicle, a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the owner of the said vehicle.

(3) Whenever any vehicle as referred to in sub-section (1) is confiscated in connection with commission of an offence under this Act then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court, Tribunal or other authority, except the competent authority, shall have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release of such vehicle.

(4) Where the competent authority is of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest that the vehicle, as referred to in sub section (1), confiscated for commission of offence under this Act be sold by public auction, he may at any time direct it to be sold:

Provided that before giving such directions for sale of confiscated vehicle, a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall b