Transportation of cattle within a state does not require a permit. Confiscation of a vehicle for alleged illegal transport is illegal in the absence of evidence proving intent for prohibited slaughter or cross-border movement, and arbitrary auction of seized property during pending litigation is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case No.3546 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202514000003546 ( Chandrabhan Kumar vs. State of U.P. ), under Section 5-A(8) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, whereby the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.1253 of 2024, Computerized Case No.D202414180001253 ( State vs. Moti Patel and others ), under Section 5-A of the Act, 1955, was affirmed. By the said order, vehicle no. UP65-JT-0125 belonging to the petitioner was confiscated on the allegation that it was carrying ten bovine animals for slaughter to the State of Bihar without a permit, which was mandatory under the Act of 1955.

2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that on 08.09.2024 at about 14:00 hours, the police personnel of Police Station Saiyadraja, District Chandauli, acting upon information supplied by an informer, that certain vehicles were transporting cows and their progeny for slaughter to the State of Bihar, intercepted vehicle no. UP65-JT-0125 belonging to the petitioner. Upon search, ten bovine animals, namely six heifers, two cows, one bull and one bullock, were allegedly recovered therefrom. Consequently, the vehicle was seized and FIR being Case Crime No.162 of 2024, under Sections 3/5-A/8 and 5 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as well as Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was registered at Police Station Saiyadraja, District Chandauli against Moti Patel, Anup, Chandrabhan Kumar (owner of the vehicle), and one unknown person.

3. Since, according to the prosecution, the aforesaid bovine animals were being transported in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1955, proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 5-A(7) of the Act, 1955 by the District Magistrate, Chandauli. The petitioner submitted his reply asserting that the vehicle had been forcibly seized and that no animals were being transported therein.

4. The District Magistrate, however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner and recorded a finding that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, a permit was required for transporting the animals to the State of Bihar and further, the animals were being transported for slaughter. Since the vehicle had been intercepted near the Bihar border, a presumption was drawn that the vehicle was proceeding towards Bihar and the animals were intended for slaughter. Consequently, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A(7) of the Act, 1955, the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal/revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi under Section 5-A(8) of the Act, 1955, which too came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.11.2025. The Commissioner concurred with the view that a permit was necessary for transportation of the aforesaid animals.

6. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate was initially challenged by the petitioner by means of Criminal Revision No.49 of 20