Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Lok Priya Panchal vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34163]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5653/2025
Tejpal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Budhi Kumari
Dist Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5551/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Nawagaon Ps Sadar Banswara Tehsil
And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sang Banswara Tehsil And District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Ps Sadar Banswara District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Kailash S/o Likhmaram, R/o Village Dehru District Nagaur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5553/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar Banswara, Tehsil
And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Ghatol, District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara.
4. Govind S/o Bachnaram, R/o 8A, Chhoti Sri Ganganagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (2 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5696/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, P.s. Sadar Banswara, Dist.
Banswara,raj.
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Vijendra Singh Rathore S/o Mahaveer Singh, R/o Village
Sindhad, Dist. Nagaur,raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5700/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Sh. Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Banswara,
District Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. Dist. Collector, Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Nathu Khan S/o Raheem Khan, R/o Aasop Jodhpur
District Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5703/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya, Aged About 65 Years, Working
As President Banswara District Go Sewa Sangh
Banswara, Tehsil And District Bansawara (Rajasthan)
3. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (3 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, P.s. Sadar Kotwali Banswara, Dist.
Banswara,raj.
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Tejpal S/o Hariram, R/o Village Budhi Kumari,district
Nagaur (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5705/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar Banswara,
Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Banswara,
District Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara.
4. Mahendra Singh S/o Kushaal Singh, R/o Rajputon Ki
Dhani, Salwa Khurd, Pipar Road, District Jodhpur (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5706/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, P.s. Sadar Banswara, Dist.
Banswara,raj.
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Ramdev S/o Hariram, R/o Village Dehru , Dist Nagaur
Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (4 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5707/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Sh. Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan).
3. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya, Aged About 65 Years, Working
As President Banswara District Go Sewa Sangh
Banswara, Tehsil And District Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Banswara,
District Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. Dist. Collector, Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Shekh Hameed S/o Shekh Jabbar, R/o Roja Mohalla,
Caze, Beed, Maharastra
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5709/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Sh. Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Banswara,
District Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. Dist. Collector, Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Gurutejram S/o Inder Ram, R/o Near Petrol Pump,
Village Dhane, District Bhatinda, Punjab
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5973/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
Dist. Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And Dist.
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (5 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
Banswara,raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, P.s. Ghatol, Dist. Banswara,raj.
3. District Collecotor-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Oma Ram S/o Bhagaram, R/o Jaasti, Balotra, Dist.
Barmer, Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5982/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar Banswara,
Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Banswara,
District Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara.
4. Jaspal Singh S/o Gurucharan Singh, R/o Buchcho Kalan,
District Bhatinda (Punjab)
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5986/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Ghatol, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Rajpal Singh S/o Dharm Singh, R/o Dhani Saral, District
Bhiwani, Haryana
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5991/2025
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (6 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Devilal Alias Debilal Jat S/o Mishrilal Jaat, R/o Village
Rampura, Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6000/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar
Banswara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pandya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Ps Ghatol District Banswara
(Rajasthan)
3. District Collector-Cum District Magistrate, Banswara
4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Mahaveer, R/o Akhyatpura, Bhiwani
Dadari Haryana Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder
Praveen Kumar Son Of Ramsingh R/o Allaudeenpur,
Bhiwani Harayana
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6030/2025
1. Lok Priya Panchal S/o Bhagyawan Panchal, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Ps Sadar Banswara,
Tehsil And District Banswara (Rajasthan)
2. Bhuvan Mukand Pandya S/o Shri Hari Krishan Pahndya,
Aged About 65 Years, Working As President Banswara
District Go Sewa Sangh Banswara, Tehsil And District
Bansawara (Rajasthan)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (7 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Ghatol, District
Banswara (Rajasthan)
3. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Banswara.
4. Naidit S/o Umed, R/o Umarwas-Bhiwani, Tehsil Dadri,
District Bhiwani (Haryana)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
06/08/2025
1. By way of filing these criminal misc. petitions, the petitioners
have prayed for quashing of the different orders passed by the
District Collector, Banswara alleging that the District Collector has
acted ultra vires his authority while exercising his power and
jurisdiction under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal
(Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or
Export) Act, 1995, by ordering the release of the means of
conveyance (vehicles), which were seized by the police upon
registration of FIRs under various Sections of the Rajasthan
Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of
Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act of 1995’ for short) and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1960’ for short).
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (8 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
2. Learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh vehemently and fervently
submitted that the orders passed by the District Collector for release of
the vehicles which were seized by the police upon registration of FIRs, is
wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that the vehicles in question
were intercepted by the police and upon a search being made, it was
found that bovine animals were being transported in these vehicles. The
police thereupon registered FIRs under various Sections of the Act of
1995, and the Act of 1960 and accordingly, seized the vehicles in
exercise of their powers under Cr.P.C., 1973 (BNSS, 2023). He further
submitted that since the vehicles were seized while exercising the
powers available to police under Cr.P.C. (BNSS), the application for
release of vehicles ought to have been filed by the owners of the
vehicles or any other person in accordance with the provisions of law
before the concerned Magistrate.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that while passing the
impugned orders for release of seized vehicles on supurgadinama,
the District Collector while acting ultra vires his jurisdiction under
the Act of 1995, also failed to take into consideration the fact that
FIRs against the petitioners were not only filed under the Act of
1995, but also under the Act of 1960.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards Cruelty to Animals
(Care and Maintenance of Case Property of Animals) Rules, 2016
published in accordance with Sub-Section (1) of Section 38 of the
Act of 1960, learned counsel submitted that in a case of offence
relating to transportation of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor,
consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved in
such transportation shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost
of transportation, treatment and care of animal; and such vehicle
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (9 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
(offending vehicle) can also be directed to be held/kept as
security.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that as per the provisions
of the Act of 1995, the District Collector is authorized to confiscate
the means of conveyance used in commission of offence and
therefore, the District Collector without first exercising the powers
to initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings under Section
6-A of the Act of 1995, could not have ordered to release the
means of conveyance (offending vehicle) on supurdaginama upon
an application by the so-called registered owner of the vehicle.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh has placed reliance upon the
following judgment/order:-
(i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tirth Kumar
Sahu vs. Sayed Shamim Quadari, in Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No.21489/2019, decided on
05.07.2019.
(ii) The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, at Jodhpur in the
case of Gau Raksha Dal Seva Samiti Rajasthan vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition (PIL) No.2009/2014, decided on 04.05.2015.
(iii) The Hon’ble Orissa High Court, at Cuttack in the case of
Jiba Bikash Parisad versus State of Odisha and
Anr. in CRLMC No. 199/2021, decided on 21.10.2021.
(iv) The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Md. Asif
versus The State of Bihar, Patna in CRLMC
No.54293/2023, decided on 29.08.2023.
7. Per contra, Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.5653/2025, submitted that in the present case, an animal fair
by the name of ‘Shri Baldev Pashu Mela’ was organized by the
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (10 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
State Government in Nagaur from 30.03.2025 to 12.04.2025 and
in the said fair, the Government of Rajasthan permitted the
farmers to sale and transport animals for agricultural purposes.
Learned Senior Advocate submitted that as a matter of fact, the
District Collector, Nagaur on 25.03.2025 had sent a letter to the
Home Department, Government of Rajasthan for issuance of
necessary directions for ensuring safe and smooth transportation
of animals during the Mela period from Rajasthan to other States
of India. The Learned Senior Advocate accordingly submitted that
the bovine animals/cattles were being transported in the seized
vehicles in connection with the fair that had been organized, and
therefore, the transportation being in accordance with law does
not constitute any offence. He further submitted that the FIRs in
these matters have been lodged by the police due to certain
extraneous considerations and thus the penalty imposed upon
petitioner for release of the truck on supurdaginama by the
District Collector, Banswara is liable to be set aside as being bad in
the eyes of law.
8. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the controversy with
regards to the power of the District Collector involved in the
present case has already been set to rest by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the batch of cases led by S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2097/2024 Rameshwar versus State of Rajasthan
reported in 2024 (3) Cr.L.R. (RAJ) 1196, decided on
01.07.2024 wherein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after
examining various Sections of the Act of 1995, has held that post
the seizure of the means of conveyance (offending vehicle) by the
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (11 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
police, the District Collector being the competent authority under
the Act of 1995, acts like a quasi-judicial authority and holds
exclusive jurisdiction in handling the seized items and can
therefore make an order with regards to the possession, delivery,
disposal or release of such means of conveyance on interim
custody. He thus prayed that the writ petitions challenging the
orders of the District Collector whereby the District Collector
released the means of conveyance (offending vehicle) on
supurgadinama, may be dismissed. He further prayed that the fine
imposed by the District Collector in the impugned orders upon the
means of conveyance (offending vehicles) may also be set aside.
9. Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused the material
available on record.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
reproduce Section 6-A of the Act of 1995, which reads as under:-
‘6-A. Confiscation of the means of conveyance.-
(1) Whenever an offencec punishable under this Act is
committed, any means of conveyance used in the
commission of such offence shall be liable to
confiscation.
(2) Where any means of conveyance referred to in sub-
section (1) is seized in connection with the commission
of any offence punishable under this Act, a report of
such seizure shall, 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 means of
conveyance was seized, may, if satisfied that the said
means of conveyance was used for commission of
offence under this Act, order confiscation of the said
means of conveyance:
Provided that before ordering confiscation of the
said means of conveyance a reasonable opportunity of
being heard shall be afforded to the owner of the said
means of conveyance and if such owner satisfies the
Competent Authority that he had no reason to believe(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (12 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]that such offence was being or likely to be committed
and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the
commission of such an offence, the Competent Authority
may not confiscate the said means of conveyance:
Provided further that where such means of
conveyance is owned by the Central Government or any
State Government or any of their undertaking, no order
of confiscation of such means of conveyance shall be
passed by the Competent Authority and the matter shall
be referred to the State Government by the Competent
Authority for making such orders regarding means of
conveyance as the State Government may deem fit:
Provided also that before ordering confiscation
under this sub-section, the owner of the means of
conveyance referred to in sub-section (1), may be given
an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation, a fine not
exceeding the market price of such means of
conveyance:
Provided also that an owner of a means of
conveyance shall not be given option under the
preceding proviso, if he had been given option under
that proviso at an earlier occasion.
(3) Whenever any means of conveyance as referred to in
sub-section (1) is seized in connection with commission
of an offence under this Act, the Competent Authority
shall have, and notwithstanding anything contained in
any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal
or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make
order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or
release of such means of conveyance.
(4) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that
it is expedient in public interest or for the benefit of its
owner that the means of conveyance, as referred to in
sub-section (1), seized for commission of offence under
this Act be sold by public auction, he may at any time
direct it to be sold.
(5) Any order of confiscation made by the Competent
Authority shall not prevent the infliction of any
punishment to which the person affected thereby is
liable under this Act.”
11. The operative portion of the judgment passed in the case of
Rameshwar (Supra) is reproduced herein below for ready
reference:-
44. Conclusion:- This Court finally reaches to the
conclusion;
(i). that the nature of confiscation proceedings under
Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1995, is
quasi-judicial and not criminal proceedings, therefore,
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (13 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
the Competent Authority i.e. the Collector of concerned
District, while passing any order under Section 6-A of
the RBA Act, 1995, acts like a quasi-judicial authority
and not as a criminal Court;
(ii). that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the
Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1995, are independent and
distinct, which are separately maintainable before the
Competent Authority i.e. the concerned District
Collector, apart from the criminal proceedings,
commenced against the wrongdoer for commission of
offence(s) under the RBA Act, 1995 before the criminal
Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This
conclusion is based on the ratio decidendi expounded by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Kallo Bai [(2017) 14 SCC 502];
(iii). that 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. Such
conclusion is based on the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Abdul Vahab Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 13 SCC 310];
(iv). that As far as exercising jurisdiction by the
Competent Authority to make an order with regard to
possession, delivery and disposal or release of such
means of conveyance on interim custody is concerned,
the Authority may pass such orders in accordance with
law duly guided by law of judicial precedents, settled in
various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts in
this regard, 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 on revenue to the State
exchequer as well.
(v). that against the order passed by the District
Collector being the Competent Authority under Section
2(g) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1995, in
exercise of its power and jurisdiction entrusted to him
specifically under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (14 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
Animal Act, 1995, the interference should not and
cannot be made by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, since the
Authority did not act like a criminal Court under the
Code of Criminal Procedure. For arriving of such
conclusion, this Court has followed ratio decidendi
expounded by the Apex Court in cases of State of W.B.
Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana [(2004) 4 SCC 129] & State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC
733], referred hereinabove. 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 there against may certainly lie;
and
(vi). that in respect of question of law about availability
of any alternative statutory remedy of appeal or revision
against the order passed by the Competent Authority i.e.
the District Collector in exercise of its powers under
Section 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, this Court has
expressed its own opinion and made recommendations
to the Government of Rajasthan in Para No.30 of the
present judgment, as under:-
“30. Therefore, the aforesaid question of law
about availability of any alternative remedy of
appeal or revision against the impugned
orders passed by the District Collector in
exercise of its power and jurisdiction under
Section 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, is answered
in negative, however, taking into
consideration the availability of statutory
remedy of appeal/ revision, against the order
of confiscation and other kind of ancillary
orders, as provided in other statutes, referred
hereinabove, dealing with the similar nature of
subject matter, this Court records its opinion
that a remedy of appeal or revision against
the order passed by the Competent Authority
i.e. the District Collector in exercise of its
jurisdiction u/s. 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995,
must be open and be provided to the
aggrieved person. It may not be oversight
that against the order of same Competent
Authority i.e. the District Collector, passed
under Section 7(1) or (2), remedy of appeal is
already prescribed under Section 7(3) of the(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (15 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]Act, before the Divisional Commissioner, as
much as in the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
also, against the order of confiscation passed
under Section 69(4), remedy of appeal is
available u/s. 9-A. The provision of Section 6-
A was inserted by the State legislature in RBA
Act, 1995, on the similar lines of Section 69 of
Rajasthan Excise Act, with an aim and object
to enlarge scope of the Act, for seizure and
confiscation of the means of conveyance as
well, which was used in commission of offence
under the RBA Act. Therefore, this Court
deems it just and proper that in order to bring
the provision of Section 6-A to its
completeness, on the similar line of Section 69
of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, the State
Legislature ought to ponder over its attention
to the issue to open remedy of appeal to the
aggrieved person against the order of
Competent Authority passed under Section 6-
A, in the similar tune as available against the
order of Competent Authority passed under
Section 7(1) or (2), u/s. 7(3) of the RBA Act,
1995 and 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 atleast to make clarification in this
regard, if think it just and proper to do so,
within its domain and as per its own wisdom.”
45. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of
this judgment to the Principal Law Secretary,
Government of Rajasthan forthwith, who shall circulate
the same to all the District Collectors of the State of
Rajasthan as also shall apprise the Government of
Rajasthan about the opinion and recommendations
made by this Court in Para No.30 of this judgment, to
do the needful, however, it would be within the
exclusive domain, discretion, jurisdiction and powers of
the Government of Rajasthan and State Legislature,
either to carry out or not any amendment, or to make
any clarification or not, in the provision of Section 6-A of
the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1995, in respect of
providing any remedy of appeal/ revision against the
order passed therein by the Competent Authority and in
this regard, Government of Rajasthan would be
absolutely free to deal with the issue, as it deems fit and
proper as per its own wisdom.
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (16 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
12. Having perused the judgment passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Rameshwar (Supra),
this Court finds that the controversy raised in the present case
with regards to competence of the District Collector to release the
means of conveyance (offending vehicles) in question on
supurdaginama does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional
error. The co-ordinate Bench at Jaipur after perusing various
provisions of the Act of 1995, has held that the District Collector
being the competent authority as defined in the Act of 1995, has
full power and authority to release the offending vehicle on
supurdaginama. Additionally, another co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Chhatarpal versus State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.490/2021) decided on
13.09.2022 after analyzing the provisions and purpose of Section
6-A of the Act of 1995 observed that denial of releasing the
vehicle will not be conducive as by the time, trial is over, the
condition of vehicle laying idle and unattended will deteriorate and
deplete to such an extent that it would fetch no price, if it is
confiscated and offered for sale and the Court was thus of the
opinion that directing the petitioner to furnish an FDR in the name
of the District Collector would be a preferable option.
13. Further, it is also not the present case that any order to
keep/hold the offending vehicle has been passed by the learned
Magistrate in exercise of the powers available under the Rules of
2016 and therefore, on that account, the District Collector being
competent authority under the Act of 1995 cannot be restrained
from exercising its powers which is of quasi-judicial nature with
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34163] (17 of 17) [CRLMP-5653/2025]
regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or release of offending
vehicle on interim custody. Thus, the impugned orders with
respect to the release of the seized vehicles on supurdaginama
and also the imposition of penalty/fine in accordance with Section
6A(2) of the Act of 1995, passed by the District Collector, by a
detailed reasoned order does not call for any interference.
14. Consequently, the instant writ petitions are dismissed.
However, the petitioners shall be required to furnish an
undertaking before the District Collector, Banswara to the effect
that, as and when the vehicle is required by him or by the
competent Criminal Court during the trial, they shall produce the
same, and also that till the pendency of the trial, they shall not
create any third-party rights in respect of the offending vehicles.
15. It is further made clear that present order shall not preclude
the competent Criminal Court from passing the orders in exercise
of the powers available to it under the Act of 1960 and Rules of
2016.
16. The stay petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(32-47)-Dinesh/-
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 09:51:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)