Arbitrary Confiscation Of Property Used In Trade Is Serious Encroachment On Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(g): Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that arbitrary confiscation of the property used in trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court set aside the confiscation order and directed the release of the revisionist’s vehicle which was seized by police on the charges of allegedly transporting three bulls, seven cows, one calf and one dead bull for slaughter from West Bengal through Prayagraj.
A Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed, “The confiscation by its very connotation implies depriving a person of his property to which he is entitled to retain. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Arbitrary confiscation of the property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation is a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his trade, occupation or business. The procedure prescribed by law for confiscating the property, as contained in Section 5A(7) of the Cow Slaughter Act, empowers the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate/seize the vehicle only if the conditions so prescribed under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A are fulfilled.”
Advocate Narendra Deo Shukla appeared for the revisionist.
The prosecution alleged that the local police intercepted a vehicle on suspicion of illegal transportation for cow slaughter. Although twenty-one live cattle and one deceased bull were found, the revisionist filed a release application, arguing that the vehicle was held at the police station and that the seizure hindered his right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The revisionist contested the District Magistrate’s confiscation order, which was issued under Section 5A(7) of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (the Act). He argued that there was no substantiating evidence of cattle transport across state lines, a prerequisite under Section 5A, nor any permit violation.
The High Court noted that the F.I.R. indicated that none of the cows were maimed nor physically injured. Further, the allegation that they were being transported to West Bengal from Prayagraj for slaughtering required no consideration as the condition precedent for the application of the section was that the cattle described in the Act should have been transported from any place in the State of U.P. to any place outside the State.
“Even if the story of seizure of cattle is believed, then also 21 cattle are said to have been seized within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi namely within the State of Uttar Pradesh and admittedly, the border is far away. The fact remains that cattle were apprehended from within the State of U.P. and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were transported to a place outside the State of U.P.,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Court remarked, “The provisions of Section 5A manifest that no permit is required for transportation of progeny of cow within State of U.P. from one place to another, and there is no material in support of the allegation that the cattle were being transported from State of U.P. to Westbengal in violation of relevant statutory provisions.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition.
Cause Title: Kamare Alam v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:169619)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocate Narendra Deo Shukla and Vivek Shukla