# Lav Kush Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 976
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8278 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lav-kush-kumar-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54430
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police exercises the powers of an Executive Magistrate as envisaged under Section 14 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

17. Consequently, a joint meeting was duly convened on 23.02.2026, wherein the
Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, upon collective deliberation,
found sufficient grounds to approve the proposed gang chart. The gang chart was subsequently
approved on 24.02.2026. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner?that the gang chart is vitiated because it was not approved during a joint meeting?is
legally untenable.

18. Furthermore, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gabbar Singh
(Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not support the petitioner's stance. The
argument that the signing of the gang chart by various authorities on different dates constitutes a
violation of Rule 5 is directly controverted by the minutes of the meeting produced by the learned
AGA. In view of the fact that the procedural requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16 have been
scrupulously followed, as such, the said judgment shall have no applicability in the present facts
and circumstances. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and it
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 976
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8278 of 2026

Lav Kush Kumar Shukla ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the confiscation of petitioner's vehicle u/s 5-A of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955 was legally sustainable in the absence of cogent material establishing that the cows were being
transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh for slaughter, and whether transportation of bovine animals
within the State without recovery of beef or other incriminating material could justify confiscation of vehicle.

Headnotes
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - s. 5-A - U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules,
1964 - R. 16 - Illegal transportation of cow/cattle - Requirement of valid permit - Scope of -
Statutory provisions - Transportation of bovine animals within State of Uttar Pradesh - Whether
prohibited - Not prohibited - Vehicle ordered to be released - The petitioner challenged the order
of District Magistrate, Ghazipur, as affirmed in appeal by Commissioner, Varanasi Division,
whereby his Bolero Pick-Up vehicle bearing registration No. UP-70-JT-9507 was confiscated on
the allegation that four cows were being illegally transported for slaughter - The vehicle was
intercepted on 03.06.2024 on the basis of an alleged tip-off while carrying four cow animals -
4 All. Lav Kush Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
977
According to the prosecution, the animals were being transported to State of Bihar for slaughter
- The petitioner contended that neither beef nor any dead animal was recovered from the
vehicle, that transportation was within State of Uttar Pradesh, and that no statutory prohibition
existed against such transportation - It was further asserted that the seizure and continued
detention of vehicle were arbitrary and had caused deprivation of livelihood and pecuniary loss.
Held: From a conjoint reading of provisions and the precedents of the High Court, it is abundantly clear that
the statutory embargo is attracted only when the transportation is for the purpose of slaughter, particularly
when such transportation is intended beyond the territorial limits of State of Uttar Pradesh - There is no
blanket prohibition under the Act or Rules against transportation of bovine animals within the State - In the
instant case, there is no cogent or admissible material on record to establish that the animals were being
transported for slaughter outside the State - The mere fact that the vehicle was intercepted in proximity to
State border does not, ipso facto, lead to a presumption of illegal intent - Such an inference is speculative and
legally unsustainable - Further, the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 1073 of 2024
(Luvkush Shukla and another v. State of U.P.) by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghazipur records
that neither any instrument used for slaughter nor any beef was recovered - No medical examination of the
animals was conducted to indicate cruelty or injury - The said order further acknowledges that transportation
of bovine animals within the State is not prohibited - The stand taken by the State is thus founded on mere
conjectures and surmises, without any substantive evidentiary basis - The impugned orders suffer from
manifest arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and are unsustainable in the eye of law - Thus, writ petition
allowed, impugned orders quashed - Direction to release vehicle. [Paras 12 to 16 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Kaliya v. State of UP And Others 2023 SCC OnLine All 1974; Munib v. State of UP and 2 others 2024 SCC
OnLine All 9631 - referred to

List of Acts
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955; U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1964

List of Keywords
Article 226 of Constitution of India; District Magistrate; Commissioner; Vehicle; Confiscated; Illegal
transportation of cows for slaughtering; Intercepted in proximity to State border; Illegal seizure and detention;
Compensation; No medical examination of animal was conducted to indicate cruelty and injury; Transportation
of bovine animals within the State is not prohibited; Mere conjectures and surmises; Without any substantive
evidentiary basis; Manifest arbitrariness, non-application of mind; Consequent loss of livelihood; Illegal State
Action; Award of reasonable compensation; Writ petition allowed; Impugned orders quashed; Direction to
release vehicle.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 8278 of 2026

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur in Case No. 222
of 2025 and Appellate Order dated 27.11.2025 passed by Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case
No. 3361 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Ashvni Mishra, Shubhendu Mishra

Adv. for the Respondent(s):
G.A.
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
assailing the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur in Case No. 222 of
2025 (State of U.P. vs. Lav Kush Kumar Shukla) under Section 5-A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955, as well as the appellate order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case No. 3361 of 2025 (Lav Kush Shukla vs. State of U.P. &
others), whereby the Bolero Pick-Up vehicle bearing registration No. UP-70-JT-9507 has been
confiscated in favour of the State on the allegation of illegal transportation of four cows for
slaughtering.

2. The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the petitioner?s aforesaid vehicle
was intercepted on 03.06.2024 at about 13:10 hours on the basis of an alleged tip-off while carrying
four cow animals. The prosecution case is that the cows were being transported for slaughter to the
State of Bihar, which is impermissible under the Act, 1955, and accordingly, the vehicle was seized
and subsequently confiscated by the District Magistrate by order dated 14.08.2025, which has been
affirmed in appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any beef nor any dead animal was
recovered from the vehicle. It is further contended that the transportation, if any, was within the
State of Uttar Pradesh, which is not prohibited under the provisions of the Act, 1955 or the Rules
framed thereunder. It is urged that the impugned action is wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction,
and has resulted in deprivation of the petitioner?s right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner has suffered pecuniary loss due
to illegal seizure and continued detention of the vehicle and is, therefore, entitled to compensation.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the petitioner failed to produce a valid permit at
the time of interception, thereby violating the provisions of the Act, 1955. It is further contended
that the animals were being transported for slaughter to the State of Bihar, and thus the confiscation
is justified. The impugned orders have been supported as lawful.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the
impugned orders.

6. According to the office report, there is a delay of 43 days in filing this writ petition. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned.

7. For proper adjudication, it is apposite to refer to the relevant statutory provisions.

8. Section 5-A of The U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, reads as under:

 "5A.Regulation on transport of cow, etc.-(1) No person shall transport or offer for
transport or cause to be transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof in any
place in Uttar Pradesh is punishable under this Act from any place within the State to any place
4 All. Lav Kush Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
979
outside the State, except under a permit issued by an officer authorized by the State Government in
this behalf by notified order and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit.

 (2) Such officer shall issue the permit on payment of such fee not exceeding [five hundred
rupees ] for every cow, bull or bullock as may be prescribed :

 Provided that no fee shall be chargeable where the permit is for transport of the cow, bull
or bullock for a limited period not exceeding six months as may be specified in the permit.

 (3) Where the person transporting a cow, bull or bullock on a permit for a limited period
does not bring back such cow, bull or bullock into the State within the period specified in the
permit, he shall be deemed to have contravened the provision of sub-section (1).

 (4) The form of permit, the form of application therefor and the procedure for disposal of
such application shall be such as may be prescribed.

 (5) The State Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf by general or
special notified order, may, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as to the
legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, call for and examine the record of any
case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may deem fit.]

 [(6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the
competent authority or authorised laboratary under this Act, the driver, operator and owner
related to transport, shall be charged with the offence under this Act, unless it is not proved that
transport medium used in crime, despite all its precautions and without its knowledge, has been
used by some other person for causing the offence.

 (7) The vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the
provisions of this Act and the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement
officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of
confiscation and release, as the case may be.

 (8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be
confiscated
and
seized
by
the
law
enforcement
officers.
The
concerned
District
Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may
be.

 (9) The expenditure on the maintenance of the seized cows and its progeny shall be
recovered from the accused for a period of one year or till the release of the cow and it's progeny
in favour of the owner thereof whichever is earlier.

 (10) Where a person is prosecuted for committing abetting, or attempting to an offence
under section 3, 5 and 8 of this Act and the beef or cow-remains in the possession of accused has
been proved by the prosecution and transported things are confirmed to be beef by the competent
authority or authorized laboratory, then the Court shall presume that such person has committed
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
such offence or attempt or abetment of such offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is
proved.

 (11) Where the provision of this Act or the related rules in context of search, acquisition,
disposal and seizure are silent, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
shall be effective thereto.]"

9. Rule 16 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1964 reads as under:-

 "(1)Any person intending to transport or the offer for transport or to cause to transport
any cow, bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act in any place in Uttar
Pradesh from any place within the State to any place outside the State shall apply for a permit to
the officer authorised under Section 5-A of the Act on prescribed Form "G".

 (2)The officer authorised under Section 5-A of the Act may grant such permit on payment
of fee of Rs. 5.00 (Rupees five) per cow, bull or bullock to be deposited through treasury Challan
under the receipt head '110 - Puashupalan - A - Other receipt (6) Misc.' In case the animal so
transported is brought back to the State within the period of six months from the date of issue of the
permit, the fee Rs. 5.00 shall be refunded to the permit-holder, if the refund is claimed. All animal
intended to be transported shall be tattooed in right ear prior to the transportation from the State.

 (3)Cow, bull or bullock transported without a valid permit shall be confiscated and shall
be auctioned and the sale proceeds will be deposited under the receipt head given in sub-rule (2)
above and such person, who causes unauthorised transport shall be prosecuted under Section 8 of
the Act.

 (4)The permit referred in sub-rule (2) shall be in Form 'H'.

 (5)In the event of death of the cow, bull or bullock being so transported prior to its
return, the permit-holder shall submit the death certificate from the local Veterinary Surgeon to the
officer authorised under Section 5-A of the Act failing which he shall be liable for prosecution
under Section 8 of the Act.

 (6)These rules shall also apply to the cow, bulls or bullocks transported to cattle fairs,
exhibitions and markets outside the State. The permit-holder shall have to submit a certificate of
sale from the manager of such fairs, exhibitions and market to the officer authorised under Section
5-A of the Act on Form I failing which he shall be liable to prosecution under Section 8 of the Act.

 (7)In case cow, bulls or bullocks are needed by another State Government of recognised
institutions outside the State, such permit for transportation of animal will be granted on deposit of
requisite fees by the party concerned under sub-rule (2), but the application shall have to be routed
through the State Government concerned."

10. Further, this Court in the case of Kaliya vs. State of UP And Others 2023 SCC OnLine
All 1974, held as under:-
4 All. Lav Kush Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
981
 "10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through
the record as well as provisions of the Act, I find that the moot question involved in this case is
whether the present petitioner has violated any provision of law in transportation of cows and its
progeny by the aforesaid vehicle and whether the impugned orders have been passed confiscating
the said vehicle in accordance with law.

 11. ***

 12. A perusal of section 5-A(1) of the Act shows that the said provision shall come into
place when the cow or its progeny is transported from within the State of U.P. to any other place
outside the State and in that case, permit issued by the authorised officer of the State government
shall be required.

 13. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged recovered animals, i.e. the cows
were being transported from within the State of U.P. to any other State. Therefore, from the plain
reading of section 5-A of the Act, the permit is not required in the peculiar facts of this case.

 14. The question involved in the case in hand has also come up for consideration before
this court in Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. 2008 (10) ADJ 623 wherein it has been held that no
permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within the State of U.P. Section 5-A(6 to
8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle by which beef or cow and its progeny is
transported in violation of the provisions of the Act and relevant rules.

 15. From perusal of sub sections (1 to 5) of section 5-A of the Act and the law laid
down by this court in Kailash Yadav's case (supra), it is evident that there is no need of permit to
transport cow(s) and its progeny within the State of U.P. Hence, such transportation of cow and
its progeny cannot be said to be in violation of the Act. Consequently, it can also not be said that
the seized vehicle has been used in violation of Section 5-A or any other provision of the Act.
Therefore, the police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question
and the District Magistrate also could not have issued notice under section 5-A of the Act when
there is nothing to substantiate that the animals were being transported from within the State to
some other State. In other words, in case the animals were being transported within the State of
U.P., no show cause notice under section 5-A of the Act could have been given.

 16. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2022 passed in
Mohd. Shakib v. State of U.P. Application under section 482 CrPC No. 23143 of 2021 has held
that no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny within the State of U.P. and therefore,
it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in question was used in violation of section 5A(1) to (11)
or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Relevant paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Mohd.
Shakib's case (supra) is reproduced as below:

 "12. Now, it is to be considered whether permit is required for transportation of the cow
or its progeny within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This question came up for consideration before
this Court in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005 (Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P., 2008 (10) ADJ
623), wherein it is held that no permit is required for transportation of cow or its progeny within
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the State of Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) provides for confiscation and release of vehicle
by which beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provision of this Act and the
relevant rules. Sub-section 5A (6 to 8) reads as follows:"

 (6) Where the said conveyance has been confirmed to be related to beef by the competent
authority or authorised laboratory under this Act, the driver, operator and owner related to
transport, shall be charged with the offence under this Act, unless it is not proved that the transport
medium used in crime, despite all its precautions and without its knowledge, has been used by some
other person for causing the offence.

 (7) The vehicle by which the beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the
provisions of this Act and the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and seized by the law enforcement
officers. The concerned District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do all proceedings of
confiscation and release, as the case may be.

 (8) The cow and its progeny or the beef transported by the seized vehicle shall also be
confiscated
and
seized
by
the
law
enforcement
officers.
The
concerned
District
Magistrate/Commissioner will do all proceedings of the confiscation and release, as the case may
be.

13. From the perusal of sub-section (1 to 5) of Section 5A of this Act and the law laid
down by this Court in Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. (supra), it is abundantly clear that there is
no need of permit to transport cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore,
transportation of a cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh is not a violation of any
of the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seized vehicle in
question was used in violation of Section 5A (1) to (11) or any provisions of the Cow Slaughter
Act, and therefore, police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in
question. The District Magistrate, Varanasi has passed the impugned confiscation order dated
18.08.2021 in contravention of the law, as no permit is required to transport cow and its progeny
within the state of Uttar Pradesh. In above circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.08.2021
passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be setaside. Likewise, the revisional court has not considered the relevant provisions of Section 5A of
Cow Slaughter Act while dismissing the criminal revision of the applicant, therefore, the impugned
order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli is also against the
provisions of law and is liable to be set-aside."
 (emphasis supplied)

11. Similarly, this Court again in the case of Munib vs. State of UP and 2 others 2024 SCC
OnLine All 9631 held as under:-

 "12. Thus transportation of cow etc. is regulated by Section 5A and Section 5A(7) confers
power upon the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police to confiscate the vehicle by which the
beef or cow and its progeny is transported in violation of the provisions of this Act and the relevant
Rules. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that none of the cow were maimed nor physically injured.
Further, the allegation that they were being transported to West Bengal from Prayagraj for
4 All. Lav Kush Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
slaughtering requires no consideration as the condition precedent for the application of the
section is 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 06 cattle are said to have been seized within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lalganj
District Mirzapur 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.

 13. ..Commission of offence is one of the requisite ingredients for passing an order of
confiscation and an order of confiscation should not be passed automatically. Thus, there is no
material, as exist on record, to justify the exercise of powers under Sub Section 7 of Section 5A.
The same is clearly contrary to the mandates and powers conferred upon the District Magistrate.

 14. 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."
 (emphasis supplied)

12. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the precedents of this Court, it
is abundantly clear that the statutory embargo is attracted only when the transportation is for the
purpose of slaughter, particularly when such transportation is intended beyond the territorial limits
of the State of Uttar Pradesh. There is no blanket prohibition under the Act or the Rules against
transportation of bovine animals within the State.

13. In the present case, there is no cogent or admissible material on record to establish that
the animals were being transported for slaughter outside the State. The mere fact that the vehicle
was intercepted in proximity to the State border does not, ipso facto, lead to a presumption of
illegal intent. Such an inference is speculative and legally unsustainable. Significantly, it is not the
prosecution case that any beef, carcass, or incriminating material was recovered from the vehicle.

14. Further, the certified copy of the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in Bail Application No.
1073 of 2024 (Luvkush Shukla and another vs. State of U.P.) by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 1, Ghazipur records that neither any instrument used for slaughter nor any beef was
recovered. It is also noted that no medical examination of the animals was conducted to indicate
cruelty or injury. The said order further acknowledges that transportation of bovine animals within
the State is not prohibited.
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. The stand taken by the State is thus founded on mere conjectures and surmises, without
any substantive evidentiary basis. The impugned orders suffer from manifest arbitrariness, nonapplication of mind, and are clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.

16. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has remained in the custody of the State since
03.06.2024, resulting in continuous deprivation of its use and consequent loss of livelihood to the
petitioner. Such deprivation, occasioned by patently illegal State action, warrants award of
reasonable compensation.The petitioner can file suit for claiming compensation for the damages
suffered.

17. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
14.08.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur and the appellate order dated 27.11.2025
passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi are hereby quashed.

19. The State authorities are directed to release forthwith the vehicle bearing registration
No. UP-70-JT-9507 in favour of the petitioner, if not already released, in accordance with law,
within a week
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 984
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27666 of 2025

Satendra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether an externment order passed u/s 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 could be
sustained when the petitioner was sought to be declared as a "Goonda" solely on the basis of two pending
criminal cases, without any conviction and without sufficient material to establish habituality within the
meaning of s. 2(b) of the Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - ss. 2(b), 3(1), 3(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148,
149, 308, 427, 323, 504, 506 - The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 3(1)(d) - Externment order - Goonda - Ground - Two criminal cases -
Habitual offender - Public threat - Legality of impugned orders - The petitioner challenged the
order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bulandshahr, and the
appellate order of Commissioner, Meerut Division, whereby he was externed for a period of six
months under the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - The proceedings were