{"id":325919,"date":"2024-07-06T15:00:46","date_gmt":"2024-07-06T09:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=325919"},"modified":"2024-07-10T11:36:31","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T06:06:31","slug":"rajasthan-high-court-asks-state-to-consider-providing-statutory-remedy-of-appeal-revision-against-section-6-a-rajasthan-bovine-animal-acts-orders-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/06\/rajasthan-high-court-asks-state-to-consider-providing-statutory-remedy-of-appeal-revision-against-section-6-a-rajasthan-bovine-animal-acts-orders-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan High Court asks State to consider providing statutory remedy of Appeal\/Revision against Section 6-A Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act\u2019s orders"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In petitions seeking quashment of the District Collector’s orders regarding the confiscation and refusal to release petitioners’ vehicles, allegedly used for transporting bovine animals without permits thereby committing offenses under the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995<\/a> (RBA Act), a single-judge bench of Sudesh Bansal, J., upheld the District Collector’s orders, refrained from intervening in the orders of the District Collector as District Collector acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, not as a criminal court and denied the petitions under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a> to quash the confiscation orders and release vehicles on interim custody.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioners’ vehicles were seized by the police during the registration of FIRs for alleged offenses under the RBA Act. The District Collectors exercised their power under Section 6-A of the RBA Act<\/a>, ordered the confiscation of the vehicles because the same was allegedly used for transporting bovine animals without permits and offered an option to the owners to pay fines in lieu of confiscation. The petitioners filed a petition challenging the orders passed by the concerned District Collectors under Section 6-A of the RBA Act<\/a> and sought the release of their vehicles on Supurdgi (interim custody).<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the District Collector acted within his statutory powers under RBA Act to order confiscation or impose fines in lieu of confiscation of vehicle?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the RBA Act provides any statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the orders passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A of the RBA Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a> to interfere with the orders of the District Collector?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Whether the District Collector acts as a criminal court under Section 6-A of the RBA Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Whether confiscation proceedings should await the outcome of the criminal trial?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Parties’ Contentions<\/p>\n

    The petitioners contended that there is no explicit statutory provision under the RBA Act which provides an appeal or revision against orders passed under Section 6-A of the Act. It was contended that when compared to other provisions of the RBA Act and similar statutes, there exist no finality or appeal provisions for Section 6-A, thereby compelling the petitioners to seek High Court intervention.<\/p>\n

    However, the Amicus Curiae argued that the absence of explicit appeal provisions in Section 6-A does not imply finality of orders by the District Collector. The Amicus Curiae suggested to apply the ‘doctrine of implied power’ or purposive interpretation to allow appeals against Section 6-A orders, similar to provisions under Section 7(3)<\/a> of the RBA Act<\/a> and other similar statutes.<\/p>\n

    Law Point<\/p>\n