Create appellate remedy to challenge confiscation of vehicles used in illegal cattle transport: Rajasthan High Court

A District Collector’s decision to confiscate a vehicle under Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, can only be challenged under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and not by way of criminal proceedings, the Rajasthan High Court recently ruled [Rameshwar vs State of Rajasthan]..Justice Sudesh Bansal further held that the decision of the Collector cannot be interfered with by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction of the criminal law.“Nevertheless, it can be observed that such conclusion does not affect the judicial powers of the High Court, therefore, it is open for the aggrieved person to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, to challenge such orders, passed by the Competent Authority u/s. 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, invoking powers of judicial review of the High Court and the criminal writ petition thereagainst may certainly lie,” the Court said.The Court, however, called upon the State to consider creating appellate remedy to challenge the decision of the Collector in such cases. .The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the decisions of the District Collectors in respect of confiscation or release of vehicles seized by the police in cases registered under the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act.During the hearing of the matter, the Court had asked whether there existed any remedy of statutory appeal or revision against the Competent Authority (District Collector)’s decision, after it found that courts or any other authority have not been granted the power to make any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or release of such vehicles..After hearing the arguments and examining the relevant laws, the Court opined that though there is no clear provision of appeal or revision against the District Collector’s decision, such an omission might not have been a conscious or deliberate by the State legislature. “It may not be assumed by any means that the State legislature was inclined to deprive the person aggrieved, to have a remedy of appeal against the order passed under Section 6-A, by the same Competent Authority i.e. the Collector. Such intention of the State legislature may also be gathered by the fact that in the provision of Section 6-A, the order passed by the Competent Authority has not been held to be final and conclusive," the Court said. .It further opined that the District Collector’s order should be amenable to challenge by way of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. However, it acknowledged that the same was not explicitly mentioned in the law. “This gap/ lacunae may be a case of accidental omission and not of conscious exclusion, yet in the opinion of this Court, may not be filled by the Court either by applying the doctrine of implied powers to assume jurisdiction of appeal to the Divisional Commissioner or by applying principles of purposive interpretation and casus omissus This Court concurs with the well settled proposition of law that the right of appeal cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly provided for under the statute,” the Court added..In this backdrop, the Court said the State legislature ought to ponder over the issue to open a remedy of appeal to the aggrieved person against the order of the District Collector. “This Court finds it proper to make its recommendations to the Government of Rajasthan to consider the same and to proceed, to fill up the gap/ lacunae in this regard, or at least to make clarification in this regard, if think it just and proper to do so, within its domain and as per its own wisdom,” it thus ordered. .On exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (as was applicable on the day the case was heard) in such cases, the Court ruled that the District Collector acts as quasi-judicial authority and not like a criminal court. It thus ruled the High Court cannot interfere with the competent authority’s decision under the criminal law jurisdiction. “For the foregoing reasons, this Court is refraining itself to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC wherein the present petitions have been filed by petitioners,” the Court said, while rejecting the petitions and granting the petitioners the liberty to invoke its writ jurisdiction..However, on the responsibility of the competent authority, the Court stressed that the District Collector must pass orders in accordance with law and guided by judicial precedents, keeping in mind that detention of vehicle for a long period in the premises of Police Station does not serve any purpose and it will cause loss not only to the owner, but also cause loss of revenue to the State exchequer as well."The Competent Authority is expected to initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1995, cautiously and with circumspection, keeping in mind the basic origin of seizure of the means of conveyance, and if means of conveyance was seized by the Police, while registering an FIR in connection with commission of offence(s) under the RBA Act, 1995 and a criminal trial of case arising out of such FIR, is pending before the criminal Court, the judgment given by the criminal Court should be factored by the Confiscating Authority," it said..Advocates Dushyant Singh Naruka, Anant Sharma, Sunita Meena, Ankit Khandelwal and Jiya Ur Rahman represented the petitioners.Advocates Anurag Sharma, SS Hora, Pankaj Gupta, Sudhir Jain and Rajneesh Gupta assisted the Court as amici curiae.Public Prosecutor SS Mahla represented the State.[Read Judgment]