“Vehicles Are National Assets, Not Liabilities”: Allahabad High Court Orders Policy Framework for Disposal and Auction of Seized Vehicles
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar has held that seized vehicles, which remain unutilized and deteriorate due to procedural inefficiencies, represent a serious threat to public infrastructure and national economic interests. In a sweeping judgement, the Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to establish a Coordination Committee comprising senior officials to develop a time-bound, structured policy for the systematic release, auction, or disposal of seized vehicles. It further mandated the creation of a digital portal to track and manage seized vehicles across departments and ordered the circulation of the judgment among all judicial officers of the state.
The matter stemmed from three applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the seizure of vehicles by authorities under the U.P. Excise Act. In one such case, the police had registered an FIR based on a complaint by an Excise Inspector. Pursuant to the investigation, a significant quantity of illicit liquor was seized along with ₹14,03,550 in cash and a Mahindra Pick-Up vehicle . The vehicle’s owner applied for its release before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. However, based on the District Magistrate’s opinion that the matter was under trial, the Magistrate rejected the release application.
Aggrieved by this decision dated 10.05.2024, the applicant filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Aligarh. The applicant relied on previous High Court rulings, including Prem Swamy v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Dhirendra Singh Thapa v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The District Judge dismissed the petition, distinguishing the facts from those cited cases, asserting they pertained to seizures under the NDPS Act, unlike the current matter under the U.P. Excise Act.
However, the District Judge failed to consider the authoritative Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which laid down clear procedural guidelines for releasing seized property under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court emphasized that articles, including vehicles, should not remain unused or deteriorate during the pendency of trials. The judgment highlighted the importance of preparing proper panchnamas and photographic evidence to aid trial proceedings while allowing for the release of property.
The Court subsequently noted that the District Judge had reversed his own earlier decision and allowed the revision filed by Birendra Singh, setting aside the Magistrate’s order and remanding the matter for reconsideration in line with Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.
Beyond the specific matter, the Court identified a widespread issue across Uttar Pradesh. With 72,776 vehicles impounded by the police, 39,819 by the transport department, and 923 by the excise department, many remain unreleased due to procedural lapses, lack of coordination, or owner inaction.
The Court received comprehensive data and compliance affidavits from departments including Home, Transport, Excise, and Prosecution. These reports detailed the various administrative and statutory bottlenecks contributing to the accumulation of unreleased vehicles.
Suggestions were also provided for technological solutions such as creating a state-level web portal linked with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) to track seized vehicles and allow real-time inter-departmental data sharing.
Additionally, departmental delays in complying with judicial directions, unavailability of storage, absence of timely market valuation reports, and the failure to trace owners or inform insurance companies were identified as key systemic flaws.
Further, statutory barriers under special laws such as the U.P. Excise Act, U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, Forest Act, and Minor Mineral Concession Rules were found to restrict judicial discretion in vehicle release, leading to prolonged stagnation of seized assets.
The Court noted that these barriers, while legitimate, must be reconciled with public interest and economic rationale. Vehicles are essential to logistics, commerce, and employment. Retaining them without due process results in economic loss, administrative inefficiency, and potential rights violations.
The Court recorded that “Every seized vehicle is not just an impounded object—it is a national asset.” It noted, “Vehicles contribute to industrial growth, logistics, agriculture, tourism, and trade. The longer they are left to deteriorate… the greater the loss to the national economy.”
It further stated: “The fundamental jurisprudential principle is ‘Punish the offender, not the instrument.’ A vehicle does not commit a crime—it is, at best, a passive tool misused by an individual.”
Justice Diwakar emphasized: “Courts, as custodians of constitutional and legal rights, must adopt a growth-oriented lens… to minimize wastage.”
The Court found that “the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case are regularly ignored by the police, District Magistrates, Commissioners of Police, and the learned trial courts.”
Additionally, the Court recorded the lack of “uniform or consistent approach adopted by the courts in dealing with vehicle release applications.”
Highlighting administrative gaps, it stated: “There is no centralized place to store the vehicles or agency to document and reflect details of vehicles seized… released by the court are repeatedly used by criminals, merely by altering number plates and chassis numbers.”
Justice Diwakar acknowledged that special statutes such as Section 5A(7) of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act, and Rule 72(6) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules barred judicial release of vehicles during pendency of proceedings.
However, he cautioned that: “This rigid structure must be balanced against the rights of owners, the economic interests of the State, and the public interest.”
The Court noted procedural lapses by authorities, including the failure to file timely verification reports, collect forensic evidence, or deposit security bonds. It recorded that even in the presence of judicial release orders, compliance was often delayed due to pending appeals without stay orders.
It concluded: “A harmonized framework that integrates procedural discipline with pragmatic flexibility is essential to ensure both the rule of law and economic rationality in the treatment of seized vehicles.”
The Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to constitute a Coordination Committee comprising the Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary (Transport), Principal Secretary (Excise), Director General (Prosecution), Additional Director General of Police (Technical), Additional Director General of Police (Crime), and other experts as needed.
This Committee is tasked with formulating a comprehensive policy with structured guidelines for each department to ensure seized vehicles are auctioned or disposed of in a timely manner, preventing loss or deterioration.
The Committee must examine all suggestions provided by departments including Home, Police, Transport, and Excise and issue appropriate directions within a fixed time frame.
The Committee shall develop a single-window web portal and ensure integration with the CCTNS system through an API interface. The NIC is to define the functional requirements for the software.
The feasibility of creating “district-level centralized vehicle yards” with QR code tracking linked to a centralized state portal is to be explored, with pilot projects considered.
The Committee must also deliberate on the feasibility of auctioning vehicles where neither the owner nor insurer has filed for release within six months of the case’s initiation.
The Director General of Police is tasked with ensuring that no vehicle remains abandoned around police stations upon the Committee’s completion of work.
The Court stated that if any department officer seeks permission from the Court to auction unclaimed vehicles, such applications must be considered “expeditiously and in accordance with law.”
In particular, “the mere pendency of trial shall not… operate as a bar to the disposal of the offending vehicle, especially where its continued retention serves no evidentiary purpose.”
The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to forward the judgment and associated affidavits to the Chief Secretary for effective compliance.
Copies are also to be sent to the Home Department, all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh via the Registrar General, and to the Director of JTRI, Lucknow, for record and reference.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Pankaj Sharma, Pradeep Kumar; Sudarshan Singh; Diwakar Tiwari, Satish Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, G.A.
Case Title: Birender Singh v. State of U.P. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:82636
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22859 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
