Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.Nos.37197/2011 (LB-RES-PIL) C/W 7641/2007 (LB-RES-PIL), 7642/2007 (LB-RES-PIL), 7644/2007
(LB-RES-PIL), 6229/2007 (GM-RES-PIL), 4920/2007 (LB-BMP-PIL), 427/2007 (LB-BMP-PIL), 4034/2007
(GM-RES-PIL).
W.P.No.37197/2011
BETWEEN:
1.MASTER JISHNU.G.,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, A MINOR REP. HEREIN BY
HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, R.GURURAJA, # 276, S-M14-B,
18TH BLOCK, 5TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 106.
2.VIDYA.P, W/O R.GURURAJA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
# 276, S-M14-B, 18TH BLOCK, 5TH PHASE,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 106. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: ARUN SRIKUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI. NAYAK &
SRI.SRIKUMAR, ADVS.)
R
-: 2 :-
AND:
1.BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. KARUNA ANIMAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF KARNATAKA,
KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. ANIMAL RELIEF FUND (ARF) COPRORATE OFFICE,
COMFORT MANOR, 1ST FLOOR, NO.10/4-2, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
5. KRUPA LOVING ANIMALS, NO.16, 7TH MAIN ROAD, STAGE I,
KENGERI, SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
6. COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS
ACTION (CUPA), BBMP-CUPA ANIMAL BIRTH CONTROL CENTRE, MUNICIPAL
DOG POUND, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 047. (SEPARATE AMENDED CAUSE TITLE
AS PER ORDER DATED 2/1/2012 FILED ON 2/4/2012) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R1, AND
SRI.K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1, SRI.KUMAR RAM & SRI.C.K.NANDAKUMAR, ADVS. FOR R6, SMT.SHWETA
-: 3 :-
KRISHNAPPA, ADV. FOR M/S. SHETTY & HEGDE ASSTS.
FOR R4, SRI.G.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R3, SRI.R.DEVDAS, AGA FOR R2, MISS.CHAMPOOKAVYA.S.,
ADV. FOR M/S. SASTRY & CO., FOR R5)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R1 TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN A SUM OF RS.5,00,000 WITH LIBERTY TO
SEEK ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN THE EVENT OF ANY FUTURE HEALTH RELATED COMPLICATION TO THE P1 ON
ACCOUNT OF THIS ATTACK DIRECT THE R1 TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY'S STREETS ARE CLEARED OF GARBAGE
AND WASTE IN LOCATIONS WHERE STREET DOGS ARE
PRONE TO GATHER.
W.P.No.7641/2007
BETWEEN:
1.MS. TEJASWINI.T., D/O. THYAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.401, NORTH BLOCK,
SOUTH SPARTA APTS., 15TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 5TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-78.
2.MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR.P.,
S/O. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT 257/A, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE.
-: 4 :-
3.SRI. NAVEENDRAN.W.,
S/O. WILLIAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT 257/A, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE.
4.SRI.VENUGOPAL REDDY.G.,
S/O. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT 257/A, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE.
5.MS. AMBIKA.R., D/O. RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT 257/A, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
11TH MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(BY MISS: CHAMPOOKAVYA.S., ADV. FOR M/S. SASTRY & CO., ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2.BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER. ... RESPONDENTS
-: 5 :-
(BY SRI: R.DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1, SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R.,
ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R2)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT ANIMAL BIRTH CONTROL (DOGS) RULES, 2001 AND ANIMALS
BIRTH CONTROL PROGRAM.
W.P.No.7642/2007
BETWEEN:
1.SNEHA.G.S.MAIYA,
NO.426/A, 1ST 'C' CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 095.
2.SHASHI KUMAR.M., S/O.J.MARI RANGAPPA,
1534, 6TH 'C' MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
3.SMITHA NANAIAH, NO.23[106], NEAR UPPER HOSTEL ROAD,
MADIKERI, COORG-571 201.
4.RAJAMANI.B.,
D/O. B.MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
1/E, MAGADI CHORD ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.
5.PADMA MAIYA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.5/2, INNOVA RESIDENCY,
-: 6 :-
HARIRAM, AILDAS BEYOND,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.
6.G.SADASHIVA MAIYA, S/O. RAMACHANDRA MAIYA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.5/2, INNOVA RESIDENCY,
HARIRAM AILDAS LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040. ... PETITIONERS
(BY MISS: CHAMPOOKAVYA.S., ADV. FOR M/S. SASTRY & CO., ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2.BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION,
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SUBRAMANYA.R., ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R2, SRI.N.DEVDAS, AGA FOR
R1)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 PROPERLY IMPLEMENT ANIMAL
BIRTH CONTROL[DOGS] RULES, 2001 AND ANIMALS
BIRTH CONTROL PROGRAM.
-: 7 :-
W.P.No.7644/2007
BETWEEN:
1.SRI.AJIT PAI,
S/O PAI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.601, ACROPOLIS, LIGHTHOUSE HILL ROAD,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
2.SRI.KISHORE.N.NAIK, S/O.N.NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.726, 21ST CROSS,
8TH MAIN, SECTOR 7, HSR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE- 560 034.
3.SRI. SRIRAM.S.MANI, S/O. S.MANI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT B 302, GIRI APARTMENTS,
J.P.NAGAR II PHASE, BANGALORE-78.
4.SRI.SRIDHAR.B,
S/O. BASAVRAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 729, 21ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN SECTOR 7, HSR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 034.
5.SRI. DIPTI NAIR,
S/O. NAIR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT 62, CUNNIGHAM APARTMENTS, 5, EDWARD ROAD,
BANGALORE-52.
-: 8 :-
6.SRI. HARISH.K.S.,
S/O. SAINATH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.302B, KASTURIDHAMA APARTMENTS,
9TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE- 560 008. ... PETITIONERS
(BY MISS: CHAMPOOKAVYA.S., ADV. FOR M/S. SHASTRY & CO., ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2.BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION,
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SUBRAMANYA.R., ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R2, SRI.N.DEVDAS, AGA FOR
R1) *****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1, AND R2, TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT
ANIMAL BIRTH CONTROL (DOGS) RULES, 2001 AND
ANIMALS BIRTH CONTROL PROGRAM.
W.P.No.6229/2007
BETWEEN: ANANDACHAYA TRUST,
ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATION (TRUST REG), NO-TF7, GREENERY APARTMENTS,
-: 9 :-
16TH PLAIN STREET, BANGALORE-01,
REP. BY ITS AUTHOR AND FOUNDER SMT. JAYABATTACHARYA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: M.T.NANAIAH & SRI.VISHNU HEGDE, ADVS.)
AND:
1.THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE.
3.THE MONITORIAL COMMITTEE,
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.
4.THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: R.DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1, SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R.,
ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R2 TO R4)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DT.28.3.3007 I.E, ANN-C AND DIRECT
-: 10 :-
THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUITABLE
ACCOMMODATION FOR THE STREET DOGS BY PROVIDING FOOD TILL THEIR LIFE TIME AND NOT TO KILL THE
STREET DOGS BRUTALLY CAUSING HARM TO THE MORALITY AND SENTIMENT OF THE PEOPLE AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S.
W.P.No.4920/2007
BETWEEN:
1.MR. GEORGE MATHEW, S/O P.G.MATHAI,
AGED 62 YEARS, NO.201, SURAJ APARTMENTS,
8 ‘D’ COSTA SQUARE, 3RD CROSS,
ST. THOMAS TOWN P.O., BANGALORE-560 084.
2.MS REBITA REBECCA GEORGE,
D/O GEORGE MATHEW, AGED 26 YEARS,
NO 201, SURAJ APARTMENTS, 8 ‘D’ COSTA SQUARE, 3RD CROSS,
ST. THOMAS TOWN P.O., BANGALORE-560 084.
3.MR. G.DEVARAJ,
S/O S.GANGADHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
NO. 201, SURAJ APARTMENTS,
8 ‘D’ COSTA SQUARE, 3RD CROSS, ST. THOMAS TOWN P.O.,
BANGALORE-560 084.
4.MS. CHITRA IYER, W/O VINOD SIVARAMAN,
AGED 40 YEARS, NO.5004, ETERNITY,
-: 11 :-
PRESTIGE MONTE CARLO,
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
5.MR VINOD SIVARAMAN,
S/O P.N.SIVARAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
NO.5004, ETERNITY, PRESTIGE MONTE CARLO,
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
6.MS. BINDU.K,
D/O K.G.VENKATESH MURTHY, AGED 24 YEARS,
NO.54, I PHASE, I STAGE, 3RD ‘A’ CROSS,
KARNATAKA LAYOUT, KURUBARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 086.
7.MS. NRUPA.R.NATHVANI,
W/O GOPI SHANKAR, AGED 34 YEARS,
NO.438, 9TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR I BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 043.
8.MS. NIRUPAMA SHARMA, D/O G.R.SHARMA,
AGED 43 YEARS, NO.20, NANJAPPA ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
9.MR. K.GAUTHAM, S/O GOVINDABHAT.K,
AGED 22 YEARS, NO.32, I ‘B’ MAIN, MARUTHI ROAD,
SARAKKI, J.P.NAGAR I PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.
-: 12 :-
10.MS. MEERA TIWARI, D/O S.T.SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED 38 YEARS, NO.308, 7TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
11.MS. PRAMILA CHOWDAIAH, D/O. B.C. CHOWDAIAH,
AGED 46 YEARS, NO.15, NEW HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
VISHWESHWARAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: K.V.NARASIMHAN, & SRI.SATISH, ADVS.)
AND:
1.UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, NEW DELHI.
(AMENDED ON 12/4/07)
2.STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF ANIMAL WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.
3.THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, CGC FOR R1,
SRI.N.DEVDAS, AGA FOR R2, SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R., ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R3)
*****
-: 13 :-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THEM TO STOP KILLING OF DOGS IN AND
AROUND THE BANGALORE CITY AND MANAGE, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND SAGEGUARD THE DOGS CAUGHT AS PER
THE RULES LAID DOWN IN ANIMAL BIRTH CONTROL (DOGS) RULES 2001.
W.P.No.427/2007
BETWEEN:
B.KRISHNA BHAT,
S/O. LATE B.NARAYANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
NO.399, J.P. ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 085. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: PUTTIGE.R.RAMESH & SMT.LAKSHMI HOLLA, ADVS.)
AND:
1.UNION OF INDIA,
BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FOREST,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
3.BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
-: 14 :-
NR SQUARE,
BANGALORE – 560 002.
4.ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, BY ITS DIRECTOR,
11, VENKATARAMANA STREET, SREENIVASA AVENUE,
R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI - 600 028.
5.AKHILA KARNATAKA PRANI DAYA SANGHA,
NO.27, 9TH MAIN , V BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 041.
6.COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS
ACTION (CUPA), A REGD. PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
SMT. SANOBER Z.BARUCHA, NO.257, 1ST CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
7. ANIMAL RIGHTS FUND (TRUST), NO.6, I MAIN, I CROSS, SRIPURAM,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
SRI.DILIP BAJNA. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SUBRAMANYA.R., ADV. FOR SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R3, SRI.R.DEVDAS, AGA FOR
R2, SRI.V.K.NARAYANA SWAMY, CGC AND SRI.S.KALYAN
BASAVARAJ, CGC FOR R1, SRI.K.G.RAGHAVAN, SR.COUNSEL FOR M/S. DUA ASSTS. FOR R6,
MS.CHAMPOOKAVYA.S., ADV. FOR M/S. SASTRY & CO., FOR R7, SRI.ARUN.K.S., ADV. FOR R5,
SRI.S.R.SUNDARAM, ADV. FOR R4)
*****
-: 15 :-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 7 OF THE
ANIMAL BIRTH COTROL (DOGS) RULES, 2001 AS AT ANN-
B AS UNCONSTITUTIONA.
W.P.No.4034/2007
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI: J.PRASHANTH, ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2.BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560002.
3.ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, BY ITS DIRECTOR,
11,VENKATRAMA STREET, SRINIVASA AVENUE,
R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-600028.
-: 16 :-
4.AKHILLA KARNATAKA PRANI DAYA SANGHA,
NO.27, 9TH MAIN, V BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041.
5.COMPASSIONATE UNLIMITED PLUS
ACTION (CUPA), REGD. PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.257, IST CROSS, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560038. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: N.DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1, SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R,
ADV. FOR M/S. ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS. FOR R2, SRI.S.R.SUNDARAM, ADV. FOR R3, SRI.K.S.ARUN, ADV.
FOR R4, SRI.K.G.RAGHAVAN, SR.COUNSEL FOR M/S. DUA
ASSTS. FOR R5)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATORY
FUNCTIONS AND PAY ADEQUATE COMPENSATION TO THE
VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
THESE PETITIONS BEING RESERVED AND COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-: 17 :-
O R D E R
NAGARATHNA J.:
It is said that a Dog is a man’s best friend. But in
these writ petitions we are confronted with the “menace of
stray dogs” in the metropolis of Bangalore.
2. W.P.No.37197/2011 is filed by a minor boy,
Jishnu, seeking compensation, being a victim of a dog bite.
There are other reliefs sought against the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (“B.B.M.P.”, for short) with
regard to the stray dogs.
3. W.P.Nos.7641/2007, 7642/2007, 7644/2007
are public interest litigations, seeking implementation of
the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and Animal
Birth Control Programme (“ABC Rules, 2001” and “ABC
Programme”, for short).
4. W.P.No.6229/2007 is filed by an Animal
Welfare Trust, seeking consideration of their
representation dated 28/03/2007 by the respondents and
-: 18 :-
also seeking directions for providing suitable
accommodation to street dogs and to prevent their killing
as they are being killed brutally.
5. W.P.No.4920/2007 is filed by a group of
citizens, seeking prevention of the killing of dogs and to
safeguard dogs, as per the ABC Rules, 2001. A
concomitant prayer is also sought with regard to efficient
disposal of garbage in and around Bangalore City, so that
the management of solid waste would to some extent
ameliorate the problem of street dogs.
6. W.P.No.427/2007 has assailed the validity of
the Rule 7 of ABC Rules, 2001. A direction is also sought
to the State Government as well as to B.B.M.P., to
implement the provision of the Municipal Solid Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter,
referred to as the “MSW Rules, 2000).
7. W.P.No.4034/2007 is a suo motu proceeding
initiated at the behest of the Karnataka Legal Services
-: 19 :-
Authority, bringing to the notice of this Court the fact that
a minor boy aged about four years was mauled to death by
stray dogs on 01/03/2007. A request is made for directing
the B.B.M.P. to perform their obligatory functions having
regard to Section 58 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act, 1976”, for the sake of
brevity) and to provide security to the citizens by curbing
the menace of stray dogs in public places.
8. Thus, in all these writ petitions, except in
W.P.No.6229/2007, the contentions are directed towards
the dog menace. In W.P.No.6229/2007 the prayer is for
the protection of stray dogs.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned senior counsel along with the other
counsel for the respondents on several dates.
10. While, the learned counsel for the petitioners
have highlighted various problems arising out of the
increase in street or stray dogs in Bangalore Metropolis
-: 20 :-
and one of the counsel has also gone to the extent of
seeking culling of all street dogs, the others have sought
for the eradication of the menace of stray dogs within the
frame work of law.
11. Counsel for the respondents representing the
Animal Welfare Board and the other Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) have stated that the provisions of
law if enforced effectively would curb the menace of stray
dogs in the city of Bangalore by referring to the relevant
provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 (hereinafter, referred to as the “1960 Act”, for short)
as well as the ABC Rules, 2001.
12. At this stage itself, it would be necessary to note
that Rule 7 of the ABC Rules, 2001 has also been assailed
in certain writ petitions. The ABC Rules, 2001 have been
framed by the Central Government pursuant to Section 38
of the 1960 Act. The object of the said Act is to prevent
infliction of unnecessary pain on or suffering of animals
and in that regard, to prevent cruelty to animals. Infact,
-: 21 :-
the Central Government had constituted a Committee to
rectify and remedy various provisions of the Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1880 and replace it by a more comprehensive
Act. Thereafter, the 1960 Act was enacted and has
received the assent of the President on 28/06/1990.
Certain amendments have been made in the year 1982 to
the said Act. The relevant definitions read as under:-
“2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires,-
* * * *
Section 2(c) "captive animal" means any
animal (not being a domestic animal) which is in
captivity or confinement, whether permanent or
temporary, or which is subjected to any appliance
of contrivance for the purpose of hindering or
preventing its escape from captivity or confinement
or which is pinioned or which is or appears to be
maimed;
(d) "domestic animal" means any animal
which is tamed or which has been or is being
sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the
-: 22 :-
use of man or which, although it neither has been
nor is intended to be so tamed, is or has become in
fact wholly or partly tamed-,
(e) "local authority" means a municipal
committee, district board or other authority for the
time being invested by law with the control and
administration of any matters within a specified
local area;
(f) "owner", used with reference to an
animal, includes not only the owner but also any
other person for the time being in possession or
custody of the animal, whether with or without the
consent of the owner;
* * * *
(i) "street" includes any way, road, lane,
square, court, alley, passage or open space,
whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public
have access.
13. Section 4 reads thus:-
“4. Establishment of [Animal Welfare
Board of India]: (1) For the promotion of animal
-: 23 :-
welfare generally and for the purpose of protecting
animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain
or suffering, in particular, there shall be established
by the Central Government, as soon as may be
after the commencement of this Act, a Board to be
called the [Animal Welfare Board of India].
(2) The Board, shall be a body corporate
having perpetual succession and a common seal
with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to
acquire, hold and dispose of property and may by
its name sue and be sued.”
Section 4 provides for the establishment of the
Animal Welfare Board in India, for the promotion of animal
welfare and for the purpose of protecting animals from
being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. The
functions of the Board inter alia includes the constant
study of the law or the law in force in India for the
prevention of cruelty to animals and advise the
Government on the amendments to be undertaken and to
take all steps to ensure that unwanted animals are
-: 24 :-
destroyed by local authorities, whenever it is necessary to
do so. To encourage the establishment of pinjrapoles,
rescue homes, animal shelters, sanctuaries etc., for
animals and birds when they have become old and useless
or when they need protection. To assist the Animal Welfare
Organizations and to impart education in relation to the
humane treatment of animals and to encourage the
formation of public opinion against the infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and for the
promotion of animal welfare by means of lectures, books,
posters, cinematographic exhibitions and the like.
14. Section 11 reads thus:-
“Section 11:- Treating animals cruelly :
(1) If any person -
(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives,
over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal
so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering
or causes, or being the owner permits, any animal
to be so treated; or
-: 25 :-
(b) [employs in any work or labour or for
any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age
or any disease] infirmity; wound, sore or other
cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the
owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so
employed; or
(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers
any injurious drug or injurious substance to [any
animal] or wilfully and unreasonably causes or
attempts to cause any such drug or substance to
be taken by [any animal]; or
(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon
any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or
position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or
suffering; or
(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage
or other receptacle which does not measure
sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit
the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement;
or
-: 26 :-
(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any
animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably
short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or
(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or
cause to be exercised reasonably any dog
habitually chained up or kept in close confinement;
or
(h) being the owner of [any animal], fails to
provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or
shelter; or
(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any
animal in circumstances which render it likely that
it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst;
or
(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is
the owner, to go at large in any street, while the
animal is affected with contagious or infectious
disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any
diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the
owner, to die in any street; or
(k) offers for sale or, without reasonable
cause, has in his possession any animal which is
-: 27 :-
suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation,
thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or
[(l) mutilates any animal or kills any animal
(including stray dogs) by using the method of
strychnine injections, in the heart or in any other
unnecessarily cruel manner; or;]
[(m) solely with a view to providing
entertainment-
(i) confines or causes to be confined any
animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a
tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object
or prey for any other animal; or
(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any
other animal; or]
(n) [xxxx] organises, keeps uses or acts in
the management of, any place for animal fighting
or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits
or offers any place to be so used or receives money
for the admission of any other person to any place
kept or used for any such purposes; or
-: 28 :-
(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting
match or competition wherein animals are released
from captivity for the purpose of such shooting;
he shall be punishable [in the case of a first
offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten
rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in
the case of a second or subsequent offence
committed within three years of the previous
offence, with fine which shall not be less than
twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one
hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three months, or with both.]
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), an
owner shall be deemed to have committed an
offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care
and supervision with a view to the prevention of
such offence:
Provided that where an owner is convicted
permitting cruelty by reason only of having failed
to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not
be liable to imprisonment without the option of a
fine.
-: 29 :-
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to -
(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration
or branding or nose-roping of any animal, in the
prescribed manner; or
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal
chambers or [by such other methods as may be
prescribed]; or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any
animal under the authority of any law for the time
being in force; or
(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
(e) the commission or omission of any act in
the course of the destruction or the preparation for
destruction of any animal as food for mankind
unless such destruction or preparation was
accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain
or suffering.”
Section 11 prescribes punishment for the cruel
treatment of animals. Under sub-clause (l) of Section 11,
a specific reference has been made to mutilation or killing
of any animal including a stray dog by using the method of
-: 30 :-
strychnine injections in the heart or in any other
unnecessarily cruel manner. However, sub-section (3)
states that nothing in this section would apply to the
destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such
other methods as may be prescribed.
15. Section 38 permits the framing of Rules, which
reads as under:-
“38. Power to make rules : (1) The
Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, and subject to the condition of
previous publication, make rules to carry out
the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice
to the generality of the forgoing power, the
Central Government may make rules providing
for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a) the [***] conditions of service of
members of the Board, the allowances payable
-: 31 :-
to them and the manner in which they may
exercise their powers and discharge their
functions;
[(aa) the manner in which the persons
to represent municipal corporation are to be
elected under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of
section 5;]
(b) the maximum load (including any
load occasioned by the weight of passengers)
to be carried or drawn by any animal;
(c) the conditions to be observed for
preventing the over-crowding of animals;
(d) the period during which, and the
hours between which, any class of animals
shall not be used for draught purposes;
(e) prohibiting the use of any bit or
harness involving cruelty to animals;
[(ea)the other methods of destruction of
stray dogs referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (3) of section 11;
-: 32 :-
(eb) the methods by which any animal
which cannot be removed without cruelty may
be destroyed under sub-section (3) of section
13,]
(f) requiring persons carrying on the
business of a farrier to be licensed and
registered by such authority as may be
prescribed and levying a fee for the purposes;
(g) the precautions to be taken in the
capture of animals for purposes of sale, export
or for any other purpose, and the different
appliances or devices that may alone be used
for the purpose; and the licensing of such
capture and the levying of fees for such
licences;
(h) the precautions to be taken in the
transport of animals whether by rail, road,
inland waterway, sea or air and the manner in
which and the cages or other receptacles in
which they may be so transported;
-: 33 :-
(i) requiring person owning or in charge
of premises in which animals are kept or
milked to register such premises, to comply
with such conditions as may be laid down in
relation to the boundary walls or surroundings
of such premises, to permit their inspection for
the purpose of ascertaining whether any
offence under this Act is being, or has been,
committed therein, and to expose in such
premises copies of section 12 in a language or
languages commonly understood in the
locality;
(j) the form in which applications for
registration under Chapter V may be made, the
particulars to be contained therein, the fees
payable for such registration and the
authorities to whom such applications may be
made;
[(ja) the fees which may be charged by
the Committee constituted under section 15 for
-: 34 :-
the registration of persons or institutions
carrying on experiments on animals or for any
other purpose;]
(k) the purposes to which fines realised
under the Act may be applied, including such
purposes as the maintenance of infirmaries,
pinjrapole and veterinary hospitals;
(l) any other matter which has to be, or
may be prescribed.
(3) If any person contravenes, or abets
the contravention of, any rules made under
this section, he shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to one hundred rupees, or
with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three months, or with both.
30[XXXX]
[38A. Rules and regulations to be
laid before Parliament : Every rule made by
the Central Government or by the Committee
constituted under section 15 and every
-: 35 :-
regulation made by the Board shall be laid, as
soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a
total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions, and if, before the expiry
of the session immediately following the
session or the successive sessions aforesaid,
both Houses agree in making any modification
in the rule or regulation, as the case may be,
or both Houses agree that the rule or
regulation, as the case may be, should not be
made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter
have effect only in such modified form or be of
no effect, as the case may be; so, however,
that any such modification or annulment shall
be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule or regulation.]”
-: 36 :-
16. Sub-section (ea) of sub-section (2) of Section
38 states that the Rules may be made with regard to the
other methods of destruction of stray dogs referred to in
clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 11. Therefore,
these provisions permit the destruction of stray dogs in a
manner which would not be cruel, in other words,
destruction of stray dogs in a humane manner is permitted
under the Act read with the Rules made there under.
17. ABC Rules, 2001, which have been framed
under Section 38 of the 1960 Act, defines “Animal Welfare
Organisation”, “Local Authority” and “Owner” in clause (b),
(e) and (f) and they read thus:-
“2. Definition: In these rules, unless the
context otherwise requires,-
(a) * * * *
(b) “Animal Welfare Organisation” means and
includes the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals and any other welfare organization for
animals which is registered under the Societies
-: 37 :-
Registration Act of 1860 (21 of 1860) or any other
corresponding law for the time being in force and
which is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of
India;
(c) * * * *
(d) * * * *
(e) “Local Authority” means a municipal committee,
district board or other authority for the time being
invested by law with the control and administration
of any matters within a specified local area;
(f) “owner” means the owner of an animal and
includes any other person in possession or custody
of such animal whether with or without the consent
of the owner;
(g) * * * *”
18. Under Rule 3, dogs have been classified into two
categories namely, (1) Pet Dogs and (2) Stray Dogs.
While, it is the duty of the owner of the pet dogs to ensure
controlled breeding, immunization, sterilization and
licensing in accordance with the Rules and the law for the
-: 38 :-
time being in force within a specified local area, the street
dogs have to be sterilized and immunized by participation
of Animal Welfare Organisations, private individuals and
the local authority and the said Rules read thus:-
3. Classification of dogs and their
sterilisation: (1) All dogs shall be classified in one
of the following two categories (i) pet dogs, (ii)
street dogs.
(2) The owner of pet dogs shall be
responsible for the controlled breeding,
immunisation, sterilization and licensing in
accordance with these rules and the law for the
time being in force within a specified local area.
(3) The street dogs shall be sterilized and
immunized by participation of Animal Welfare
Organisations, private individuals and the local
authority.
19. Rules 4 and 5 speak about the formation of a
Monitoring Committee for the planning and management
of Dog Control Programme in the realm of sterilization,
-: 39 :-
vaccination and to deal with critically ill or fatally injured or
rabid dogs in a painless method by using sodium pentathol
and to monitor dog bite cases. The said Rules reads as
under:-
4. Formation of Committee: A monitoring
committee consisting of the following persons shall
be constituted by the local authority, namely-
(a) Commissioner/Chief of the local
authority, who shall be the ex-officio Chairman of
the Committee;
(b)a representative of the Public Health
Department of the local authority;
(c) a representative of the Animal Welfare
Department if any of the local authority;
(d) a veterinary doctor;
(e) a representative of the district Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA);
(f) at least two representatives from the
Animal Welfare Organisations operating within the
said local authority.
-: 40 :-
Rule 5 speaks about the functions of the
Committee.
5. Functions of the Committee: The
Committee constituted under rule 4 shall be
responsible for planning and management of dog
control programme in accordance with these rules.
The Committee may.-
(a) issue instructions for catching,
transportation, sheltering, sterilization, vaccination,
treatment and release of sterilized vaccinated or
treated dogs;
(b) authorize veterinary doctor to decide on
case to case basis the need to put to sleep critically
ill or fatally injured or rabid dogs in a painless
method by using sodium pentathol. Any other
method is strictly prohibited;
(c) create public awareness, solicit co-
operation and funding;
(d) provide guidelines to pet dog owners and
commercial breeders from time to time;
-: 41 :-
(e) get a survey done of the number of
street dogs by an independent agency;
(f) take such steps for monitoring the dog
bite cases to ascertain the reasons of dog bite, the
area where it took place and whether it was from a
stray or a pet dog;
(g) keep a watch on the national and
international developments in the field of research
pertaining to street dogs’ control and management,
development of vaccines and cost effective
methods of sterilisation, vaccination, etc.
20. Rule 6 speaks that the Local Authority is also
under an obligation for the establishment of specified
number of dog pounds including animal kennels/shelters
which may be managed by animal welfare organizations
and incinerators to be installed by the local authority for
disposal of carcasses and to sterlize and immunize street
dogs with the participation of Animal Welfare Organistions,
private individuals and the local authority, so as to control
the street dogs population. The said Rule reads thus:-
-: 42 :-
6. Obligations of the local authority: (1)
The local authority shall provide for-
(a) establishment of a sufficient number of
dog pounds including animal kennels/shelters
which may be managed by animal welfare
organizations;
(b) requisite number of dog vans with ramps
for the capture and transportation of street dogs;
(c) one driver and two trained dog catchers
to be provided for each dog van;
(d) an ambulance-cum-clinical van to be
provided as mobile center for sterilization and
immunisation;
(e) incinerators to be installed by the local
authority for disposal of carcasses.
(f) periodic repair of shelter or pound.
(2) If the Municipal Corporation or the local
authority thinks it expedient to control street dog
population, it shall be incumbent upon them to
sterilise and immunize street dogs with the
participation of animal welfare organizations,
private individuals and the local authority.
-: 43 :-
(3) The animal welfare organizations shall be
reimbursed the expenses of
sterilization/immunization at a rate to be fixed by
the Committee on fortnightly basis based on the
number of sterilization/immunization done.
21. Rule 7, which has been assailed by some of the
petitioners herein, reads as follows:-
“7.Capturing/sterilization/immunization/
release: (1) Capturing of dogs shall be based on:-
(a) Specific complaints (for which the local
authority in consultation with the Monitoring
Committee shall set up a dog control cell to receive
complaints about dog nuisance, dog bites and
information about rabid dogs); and
(b) General:-
(i) On receipt of specific complaint about
nuisance or dog bite the same shall be attended on
priority basis, irrespective of the area from which
the complaint comes. On receipt of such complaint
the details such as name of the complainant, his
-: 44 :-
complete address, date and time of complaint,
nature of complaint etc. shall be recorded in a
register to be maintained for permanent record;
(ii) Capturing for general purpose will be on
such dates and time to be specified by the
Committee.
(2) The dog capturing squad shall consist of
–
(i) The driver of the dog van;
(ii) Two or more trained employees of the
local authority who are trained in capturing of
dogs;
(iii) One representative of any of the animal
welfare organization.
Each member of the dog squad shall carry, a
valid identity card issued by the local authority.
The dog capturing squad will be accompanied by a
representative of an Animal Welfare Organisation
nominated for the purpose.
(3) On receipt of specific complaint or for
capturing dogs in normal course the dog squad will
visit the concerned area, capture the dogs
-: 45 :-
identified by the complainant in case of complaint-
oriented capturing and other dogs in case of
general capturing. All the dogs caught will be
tagged for identification purposes and to ensure
that the dogs are released in the same area after
sterilization and vaccination. Only stipulated
number of dogs, according to the Animal Birth
Control Program target, shall be caught by the van.
A record of dogs captured shall be maintained in a
register, mentioning therein the name of the
area/locality, date and time of capture, names of
persons in the dogs squad on that particular day
and details about dogs captured such as number of
male dogs, number of female dogs, number of
puppies etc.
(4) The dogs shall be captured by using
humane methods such as lassoing or soft-loop
animal catchers such as those prescribed under the
provisions of Prevention of Cruelty (Capture of
Animals) Rules, 1979.
(5) While the dogs are being captured in any
locality the representative of the local authority or
-: 46 :-
of the Animal Welfare Organisation accompanying
the dog squad will make announcements on a
public address system that dogs are being captured
from the area for the purpose of sterilization and
immunization and will be released in the same area
after sterilization and immunization. The
announcement may also briefly educate the
residents of the area about the dog control
programme and solicit the support of all the
residents reassuring them that the local authority is
taking adequate steps for their safety.
(6) The captured dogs shall be brought to
the dog kennels/dog pounds managed by the
Animal Welfare Organisations (AWOs). On
reaching the dog pounds all the dogs shall be
examined by the veterinarians and healthy and sick
dogs should be segregated. Sick dogs should be
given proper treatment in the hospitals run by
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(SPCA)/other institutions and only after they are
treated they should be sterilized and vaccinated.
The dogs will be sterilized/vaccinated under the
-: 47 :-
supervision of the veterinarians of the hospital run
by the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(SPCA), Animal Welfare Organisation or other dog
shelters. After necessary period of follow up, the
dogs shall be released at the same place or locality
from where they were captured and the date, time
and place of their release shall be recorded. The
representative of Animal Welfare Organisations
(AWOs) shall accompany the dog squad at the time
of release also.
(7) At a time only one lot of dogs shall be
brought for sterilization, immunization at one dog
kennel or dog pound and these dogs shall be from
one locality. Two lots from different areas or
localities shall not be mixed at the same dog pound
or dog kennel.
(8) The dog kennel must have sufficient
space for proper housing and free movement of
dogs. The place should have proper ventilation and
natural lighting and must be kept clean. Adults
and puppies must be housed separately and
amongst the adults the males and females also
-: 48 :-
should be housed separately. Adequate
arrangement for drinking water and food shall be
made for dogs while in captivity.
(9) Female dogs found to be pregnant shall
not undergo abortion (irrespective of stage of
pregnancy) and sterilization and should be released
till they have the litter.”
22. Rules 9 and 10 pertaining to euthanasia of
street dogs and furious or dumb rabid dogs are extracted
as under:-
“9. Euthanasia of Street Dogs:-
Incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs as
diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian appointed by
the committee shall be euthanized during specified
hours in a humane manner by administering
sodium pentathol for adult dogs and Thiopental
Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified
veterinarian or euthanized in any other humane
manner approved by Animal Welfare Board of
India. No dog shall be euthanized in the presence
of another dog. The person responsible for
-: 49 :-
euthanizing shall make sure that the animal is
dead, before disposal.
10. Furious or dumb rabid dogs: (1) On
the receipt of complaints from the public to the Dog
Control Cell of the Local Authority or on its own,
the dog squad of the Local Authority would catch
such dogs, suspected to be rabid.
(2) The caught dog would then be taken to
the pound where it would be isolated in an isolation
ward.
(3) The suspected rabid dog would then be
subjected to inspection by a panel of two persons
i.e.,-
(i) a veterinarian surgeon appointed by the
Local Authority; and
(ii) a representative from an Animal Welfare
Organisation.
(4) If the dog is found to have a high
probability of having rabies it would be isolated till
it dies a natural death. Death normally occurs
within 10 days of contracting rabies. Premature
killings of suspected rabid dogs therefore prevents
-: 50 :-
the true incidence of rabies from being known and
appropriate action being taken.
(5) If the dog is found not to have rabies but
some other disease it would be handed over to the
AWOs who will take the necessary action to cure
and rehabilitate the dog.”
Rule 13 pertaining to the applicability of state or
local laws reads as follows:-
“13. Application of rules where local
bye-laws etc., exist:- If there is in force in
any area to which these rules extend, any Act,
rule, regulation or bye-law made under any
law for the time being in force by the State or
the Local Authority in respect of any of the
matters for which provision is made in these
rules, such rule, regulation or bye-law shall to
the extent to which-
(a) it contains provisions less irksome
to the animal than those contained
in these rules, shall prevail;
(b) it contains provisions more irksome
to the animal than those contained
in these rules, be of no effect.”
-: 51 :-
These Rules are framed by the Central Government
under the 1960 Act, which is a Central Act.
23. On the other hand, Section 58 (12) r/w Section
345 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976,
read thus:-
“Section 58:- Obligatory functions of
the Corporation: It shall be incumbent on the
Corporation to make reasonable and adequate
provision by any means or measures which it is
lawfully competent to use or to take, for each of
the following matters, namely.-
(12) the destruction of birds or animals
causing nuisance, or of vermin and confinement or
destruction of stray or ownerless dogs.”
“Section 345:- Destruction of stray pigs
and dogs:- If any dogs [x x x x x] or pigs are
found straying, the same may be summarily
destroyed by any person authorized in that behalf
in writing by a Commissioner.”
-: 52 :-
24. While assailing Rule 7 of the ABC Rules, 2001,
some of the petitioners have contended that having regard
to Section 58(12) r/w Section 345 of KMC Act, 1976, the
Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation and in the instant
case, the Commissioner of B.B.M.P., has the power to
summarily destroy the stray dogs. It is their grievance
that this power is not being exercised in view of Rule 7 and
as a result, the menace of stray dogs is writ large in the
metropolis of Bangalore.
25. Countering the said contentions, learned senior
counsel and the counsel appearing for the Animal Welfare
Board and other N.G.Os working for the protection of stray
dogs have supported the validity of the ABC Rules, 2001
and infact, contended that the 1960 Act as well as the
Rules in view of Rule 13 would have an over-riding effect
on Section 58(12) r/w Section 345 of the KMC Act, 1976,
since the former are enacted by the Parliament.
26. Infact, it was also brought to our notice that in a
matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
-: 53 :-
SLP(Civil) 691/2009 between Animal Welfare Board
of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles
(PESP) & Ors., the B.B.M.P. has filed an application
seeking impleadment. Taking note of this submission,
learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that the
B.B.M.P. has pleaded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that the ABC Rules of 2001, are unconstitutional as they
seek to over-ride the provisions of the 1960 Act, the
Parent Act and therefore, the said Rules must be declared
ultra vires; that a sum of Rs.11 Crore have been paid to
Animal Welfare NGOs in Bangalore, during the last ten
years; that Section 345 of the KMC Act, 1976 could be
harmoniously read with the 1960 Act. It is therefore the
contention of the petitioners, that the B.B.M.P. is estopped
from contending before this Court that the injuries caused
to children and adults as a result of being mauled by stray
dogs has reduced on account of effective implementation
of ABC Rules, 2001 and Anti Rabies Vaccination
Programme within the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. has reduced.
-: 54 :-
27. The petitioners have also brought to our notice,
the averments made in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit filed
by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, B.B.M.P., dated
18/10/2012 before this Court, to the effect that dogs in
the habit of snapping at children/people, habitual biters,
ferocious and with unpredictable temperament and
behaviour will be isolated and observed for a period of ten
days, during which they will be handled by Animal Welfare
Organization, animal activists and behavioural therapists.
If there is no change in the behaviour or habit, it will be
evaluated by a veterinarian of the Government and that of
Animal Welfare Organization and will be put down in a
humane way by use of Sodium Pentathol injection or any
other method as prescribed by Animal Welfare Board of
India, in the interest of public safety and health.
Therefore, it is the contention of some of the petitioners,
that even the BBMP is in favour of culling of stray dogs.
28. This has been seriously objected to by the
learned senior counsel and counsel appearing on behalf of
-: 55 :-
the respondent – Organizations. Thus, the conundrum to
be unraveled in these cases, is with regard to the
applicability of the ABC Rules, 2001 particularly, Rule 7 in
the backdrop of sub-section 12 of Section 58 r/w Section
345 of the KMC Act, 1976. The provisions of the KMC Act,
1976 provide for the destruction of stray dogs, on the
authorization of the Commissioner of the Corporation, as
part of its mandatory functions as stated in clause 12 of
Section 58 of the Act. Along side, another issue to be
addressed in these cases is the vires of Section 7 of the
ABC Rules, 2001 which are enacted under 1960 Act made
by the Parliament.
29. A submission was also made on behalf of the
learned senior counsel appearing, for the Animal Welfare
Board of India, that the provisions of the Municipal
Corporation Act, which deal with stray dogs are
inconsistent with the 1960 Act, made by the Parliament as
well as the Rules thereof and therefore, the latter must
prevail.
-: 56 :-
30. It is noticed that the 1960 Act and Rules made
there under are enacted under Entry-17, List III
(Concurrent List) which deal with “Prevention of cruelty
to animals” (Central Law). On the other hand KMC Act,
1976 is enacted pursuant to Entry-5 and Entry-6 of List-II
(State List) which deal with the powers of Municipal
Corporations; public health and sanitation, amongst
other things (State Law). In order to ascertain as to
whether there is any inconsistency between the Central
Law or the State Law and as to whether the central law
must then prevail. Article 246 of the Constitution of India
is extracted for facility of immediate reference:
“246. Subject-matter of laws made
by Parliament and by the Legislatures of
States
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses
(2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to
make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I in Schedule VII (in this
Constitution referred to as the ‘Union List’).
-: 57 :-
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause
(3), Parliament and, subject to clause (1), the
Legislature of any State [***] also, have
power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List III in Schedule VII
(in this Constitution referred to as the
‘Concurrent List’).
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the
Legislature of any State [***] has exclusive
power to make laws for such State or any part
thereof with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List II in Schedule VII (in this
Constitution referred to as the ‘State List’).
(4) Parliament has power to make laws
with respect to any matter for any part of the
territory of India not included [in a State]
notwithstanding that such matter is a matter
enumerated in the State List.”
-: 58 :-
31. Clause (2) of Article 246 of the Constitution,
states that notwithstanding anything in clause (3), the
Parliament and the Legislature of any State also have the
power to make laws with respect to any matters
enumerated in List-III to the VII Schedule (Concurrent
List). Clause (3) thereof, states that the Legislature of any
State has exclusive power to make laws for the State with
respect to any matters enumerated in List-II of the VII
Schedule (State List). However, clause (3) of Article 246,
is subject to clauses (1) and (2) which begin with a non
obstante clause. Also clause (1) of Article 246 states that
notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3) parliament
has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in List I of the VII Schedule
(Union List).
32. The power to legislate which is stated in Article
246 have to be read with the various Entries in the three
lists of the VII Schedule, which are the fields of legislation
which define the respective areas of legislative competence
-: 59 :-
of the Union and State Legislatures. While interpreting
these entries, they should be viewed not in a narrow or a
myopic manner but by giving the widest scope with regard
to their meaning particularly, when the vires of a provision
of a statue is assailed. In such circumstances, a liberal
construction must be given to the entry by looking at the
substance of the legislation and not its mere form.
However, while interpreting the Entries in the case of an
apparent conflict, every attempt must be made by the
Court to harmonise or reconcile them. Where there is an
apparent overlapping between two Entries, the Doctrine of
pith and substance is applied to find out the true character
of enactment and the entry within which it would fall. The
Doctrine of pith and substance in short means that if an
enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly
conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature which
enacted it, it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it
incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another
legislature. Also, in a situation where there is overlapping,
the Doctrine has to be applied to determine to which entry
-: 60 :-
a piece of legislation could be related. If there is any
trenching on the field reserved to another legislature, the
same would be of no consequence. In order to examine
the true character of enactment or a provision thereof, due
regard must be had to the enactment as a whole and to its
scope and objects. It is said that the question of invasion
into another legislative territory has to be determined by
substance and not by degree.
33. In case of any conflict between entries, in List –
I and II, the power of Parliament to legislate under List – I
will supersede when on an interpretation the two powers
cannot be reconciled. But if a legislation in pith and
substance falls within any of the entries of List – II, the
State Legislatures competence cannot be questioned on
the ground that the field is covered by Union list or the
Concurrent list vide Prafulla Kumar Vs. Bank of Commerce,
Khulna, AIR 1947 P.C.60.
34. We note that “Prevention of cruelty to animals"
is a subject presently enumerated in Entry 17 of List-III
having been transferred from Entry 19 of List II by the
-: 61 :-
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and the
Legislative field is occupied by the 1960 Act r/w the ABC
Rules, 2001 and therefore, as per Article 254 of the
Constitution that would have force over any State law on
the very same subject having regard to the Doctrine of
occupied field. In fact there is no such law enacted by the
Karnataka Legislature. Hence, there is no impediment for
the enforcement of the 1960 Act and Rules made there
under (Central Law) in the State as there is no situation
giving rise to any repugnancy which is associated with laws
made by the Union and the State on a subject enumerated
in the Concurrent List. Therefore the real issue is as to
whether there is a conflict between the Central Law
namely the 1960 Act and ABC Rules, 2001 and the
provisions of the KMC Act 1976 (State Law), dealing with
stray dogs. In other words, the question as to whether the
State Law has transgressed to obliterate the Central Law
requires consideration. Section 58(12) r/w 345 of the KMC
Act are enacted under Entries 5 and 6 of List II (State List)
which interalia, relate to Local Self Government and
-: 62 :-
powers of a Municipal Corporation and public health, deal
with extermination of stray dogs as part of the Municipal
Administration, which is a State subject.
35. When the field is occupied by a Central
enactment and there appears to be an apparent conflict
with the state enactment, the attempt of the Court must
be to analyze the provisions of the respective enactments,
so as to ascertain whether the same could be
harmoniously construed or interpreted without the two
sets of enactments trenching upon the other.
36. We reiterate that repugnancy or inconsistency
as contemplated under Article 254 of the Constitution
would not apply in the instant case, as the two enactments
are relatable to List-II and List-III of the VII Schedule and
are not in the Concurrent List. Also, by applying the
Doctrine of pith and substance, it could be stated that the
KMC Act, 1976 which essentially deals with Local Self
Government, also contemplates the destruction of stray
dogs in the context of municipal administration and public
-: 63 :-
health and sanitation. Keeping in mind clauses (2) and (3)
of Article 246 of the Constitution, an attempt must
therefore be made by the Court to give a harmonious
interpretation to these provisions in order to iron out any
apparent conflict.
37. A reading of the various provisions of the 1960
Act, particularly Section 11, which deals with cruelty to
animals, makes it clear that killing of any animal including
a stray dog by using the method of strychnine injections in
the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner is
cruelty which is subject to punishment. But sub-clause (b)
of Section 3 of the said Section enables destruction of
stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as
may be prescribed. Therefore, sub-clause (c) thereof,
permits the extermination or destruction of any animal
under the authority of any law for the time being in force.
In other words Section 11, does not bar the extermination
or destruction of stray dogs as such. Clause(l) of sub-
section (1) of 11 only states that killing of stray dogs by
-: 64 :-
using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in
any other unnecessarily cruel manner is punishable as it
amounts to cruelty. Therefore the culling of stray dogs
must be done in a humane manner. In fact, sub-section
(3) enables the destruction of stray dogs in lethal
chambers or such other methods as may be prescribed.
The Act provides for framing of Rules in this regard, as per
clause (ea) of sub-section (2) of Section 38. The ABC
Rules 2001 have therefore, to be read in this backdrop
with regard to the manner of extermination of stray dogs,
amongst other things.
38. We reiterate that the provisions of the 1960 Act
as well as the Rules made thereunder do not prohibit the
extermination of stray dogs as such. To this extent there
is no conflict between the 1960 Act and ABC Rules, 2001
made by the Parliament on the one hand and the
provisions of the KMC Act enacted by the State. But in the
exercise of power under the provisions of the KMC Act
1976, the Municipal Commissioner would have to bear in
-: 65 :-
mind the provisions of the Central Act and Rules made
there under namely the 1960 Act and ABC Rules, 2001 as
they are enacted under Article 246(2) read with List III
and presently occupy the field as far as State of Karnataka
is concerned and having regard to the Rule 13 thereof.
39. Thus the Central Law as well as the State Law
have to be read harmoniously and their operation is not
impeded by the other; rather when read harmoniously, the
object and scope of both the Laws complement and
supplement each other. There is thus no conflict between
the State Law and the Central law, as these enactments in
pith and substance are relatable to different lists of the VII
Schedule and do not entrench upon one another.
40. Rule 7 of the ABC Rules, 2001 deals with
capturing /sterilization/immunization/release of dogs.
Where there are specific complaints about dog nuisance,
dog bites and information about rabid dogs, such
complaints have to be attended to on a priority basis, by
the local authority. The dog would have to be captured by
-: 66 :-
the dog capturing squad as identified by the complainant
in the case of complaint-oriented capturing. Thus there
are two kinds of complaints about stray dogs, one is a
complaint about the behaviour of the dog, i.e., it has
mauled, bitten, has a tendency to cause nuisance and the
second is a complaint about a rabid dog which has to be
dealt as per Rule 10. In the case of the first category of
complaint oriented dog, a decision has to be taken by the
Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation as to whether it
has to be exterminated or it does not require
extermination as per the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976.
In the case of the former, the 1960 Act and ABC Rules
2001 would apply with regard to the manner in which
extermination has to take place. If such a dog does not
require extermination the procedure for sterilization and
vaccination must be followed as per Rule 7.
41. There can be capturing for general purpose i.e.,
for sterilization and immunization. Other dogs which are
identified could also be captured and after sterilisation and
-: 67 :-
vaccination, are to be released in the same area on prior
identification, the details of which have to be recorded in a
register. The capturing of all dogs has to be in a humane
manner, as per the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty,
(Capture of Animals) Rules, 1979. Therefore, under Rule
7, when the capture of dogs is for the purpose of
sterilization and vaccination thereafter, they are to be
released at the same place or locality from where they
were captured. Also when capturing of dogs is pursuant to
a complaint. i.e., when a complaint is lodged against a
stray dog and it is captured and the Municipal
Commissioner is of the view that it does not require
extermination has to be examined by veterinarians so as
to be found out as to whether the said dog is healthy or
sick. If it is a sick dog, proper treatment has to be given
by the Animal Welfare Organizations and only thereafter,
the dog has to be sterilized and vaccinated and thereafter
released in its locality.
-: 68 :-
42. Under Rule 9 an incurably ill or mortally
wounded dog as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian
appointed by the Committee shall have to be euthanised
during specified hours in a humane manner by
administering sodium pentathol for adult dogs and
Thiopental Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified
veterinarian or euthanized in any other humane manner
approved by Animal Welfare Board of India. No dog shall
be euthanized in the presence of another dog. The person
responsible for euthanizing shall make sure that the animal
is dead, before disposal.
43. Under Rule 10, when complaints are received,
and a dog is captured, if the said dog is found to have high
probability of rabies, it would be isolated in an isolation
ward, till it dies naturally/normally within ten days. If the
dog is found not to have rabies but some other disease, it
would be handed over to the Animal Welfare
Organisations, who would take necessary action to cure
and rehabilitate the dog. Steps for sterilization and
-: 69 :-
vaccination as contemplated in Rule 7 must be taken if the
dog is found to be non-rabid.
44. Thus, the ABC Rules also contemplate the
extermination of stray dogs under certain circumstances.
But when the killing of a stray/street dog has to take
place, it must be done in a humane manner so as to
prevent cruelty being inflicted on such a dog. Therefore on
the reading of the provisions of the 1960 Act as well as the
Rules, it cannot be held that culling of a stray dog is per se
barred. But when it is done under the circumstances
mentioned in the 1960 Act and the Rules made there
under, it must be without causing any cruelty to the
animal. Therefore, the culling of dogs is not a cruel
treatment of dogs but it must be done in a humane way as
prescribed under the Act and Rules. What has to be kept
in mind is that the destruction of dog is not by the method
of strychnine injection in the heart as mentioned in Section
11 of the 1960 Act or otherwise, it would amount to cruel
treatment of the animal. We have perused the
-: 70 :-
photographs annexed to the Writ Petitions and deprecate
the manner in which stray dogs are being captured,
transported, killed and even the photographs of the
carcass is most distressing.
45. However, what is evident is that the Rules do
not provide for, destruction of stray dogs/street dogs,
which are not incurably or mortally wounded or which do
not suffer from furious or dumb rabidity. Sub-rule (5) of
Rule 10 states that if a dog is found not to have rabies but
some other disease, it would be handed over to the Animal
Welfare Organisations, which would have to take necessary
action to cure and rehabilitate the dog. But in these cases,
the bone of contention between the parties is with regard
to the treatment to be accorded to dogs which do not
suffer from any of the aforementioned diseases but are a
source of nuisance, which maul and bite and which are
otherwise hazardous to public safety. Though, the Rules
refer to such dogs, in Rule 7 about which, complaints could
be made, the Rules do not provide with regard to the
-: 71 :-
manner in which such dogs which cause nuisance or
menace which has to be dealt with. The Rules are
therefore, non - exhaustive. There can thus, be
situations where stray dogs/street dogs, which are
vaccinated and sterilized and are also disease-free, are a
source of nuisance or cause menace to the society. In
such cases, also there can be destruction of such stray
dogs. We think so because clause(b) of section (3) of
section 11 of the 1960 Act, permits culling of stray dogs in
lethal chambers or by any other prescribed method but the
prohibition prescribed in clause (l) of sub-section (1) of
Section 11 must be borne in mind while culling such dogs.
As stated above, the extermination of such dogs which
cause nuisance or have bitten or have a tendency to maul
is in exercise of not only the power but also in compliance
with the duty obligated on the Municipal Corporation under
the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976. But in the absence of
there being any specific Rule with regard to the manner of
culling such dogs in the KMC Act, 1976, Rule 9 of the ABC
-: 72 :-
Rules, 2001, has to be taken as a prescribed method which
is also in consonance with the provisions of the 1960 Act.
46. Therefore the contention that the 1960 Act and
ABC Rules 2001 do not contemplate culling of dogs other
than those mentioned in Rule 9 and 10 is not wholly correct.
As far as culling of stray dogs is concerned the parent Act
provides for the same but the Rules can be also read along
with clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section 3 of Section 11 read
with clause (ea) of sub section 2 of Section 38 only to a
limited extent. In fact these clauses of the Act have been
inserted by the 1982 amendment but are not covered under
the ABC Rules, 2001. However while exercising power under
sub-section 3 of Section 11 of 1960 Act read with Section
58(12) and Section 345 of the KMC Act 1976, Rule 9 of the
ABC Rules 2001 have to be complied. This would also be in
consonance with Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules.
47. What is significant to note is that the ABC Rules,
2001 essentially deal with the ‘Birth Control of Dogs’
and incidentally, also deal with culling of incurably ill,
-: 73 :-
mortally wounded or rabid dogs which do not require
sterilization and vaccination. These Rules which deal with
Birth Control as stated above, are not exhaustive and do
not take in to consideration the treatment to be given to
complaint-oriented dogs, i.e., diseased or normal dogs
which cause nuisance or are in the habit of biting children
or adults. When a complaint is made about such dogs and
when the Municipal Authorities on their own capture such
dogs, on the orders of the Commissioner, they can be
exterminated in a humane manner, having regard to
clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of 1960 Act and
Rule 9 of the ABC Rules. These prescriptions have to be
kept in mind when the Municipal Commissioner performs
his duties under sub-section (12) of Section 58 r/w Section
345 of the KMC Act.
48. The expression “stray” or “ownerless dogs” in
sub-section (12) of Section 58 and the expression
“straying” in section 345 must be read in the context of
street dogs which are not incurably ill or mortally wounded
-: 74 :-
or suffering from rabies as only as such dogs are not
contemplated under the ABC Rules, 2001 which can be
exterminated. In other words, healthy dogs but causing
nuisance or have a tendency to maul or bite people,
particularly children or “complaint oriented dogs” on
account of their unruly behaviour, could be culled having
regard to the method stated above on the authorization of
the Municipal Commissioner. The complaints would have
to be made to the authorized officer of the Municipal
Corporation, respondent B.B.M.P. in the instant case. At
this point, it would not be inappropriate to extract the
statistics regarding the number of dog bites for the decade
2000-2010 within the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. as submitted
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the affidavit of B.B.M.P.
“iii) Number of Dog bites is Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike and Bruhath Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike:
Year No. of Dog bites
2000-01 Not available
2001-02 Not available
-: 75 :-
2002-03 Not available
2003-04 22,912
2004-05 32,967
2005-06 28,006
2006-07 17,798
2007-08 20,893
2008-09 12,796
2009-10 21,586”
These figures speak for themselves.
49. We hasten to add that where stray or street
dogs do not give rise to any behavioral complaint or are
disease free, cannot en masse be destroyed under the
provisions of KMC Act, 1976. Such dogs would have to be
captured vaccinated, sterilized and released at the same
locality where they were captured, in terms of Rule 7 of
the ABC Rules, 2001. Therefore, the provision of ABC
Rules, 2001 have to be strictly implemented through the
Monitoring Committee and the Animal Welfare
Organisations significantly, the Municipal Commissioner is
the ex-officio Chairman of the Committee contemplated
under Rule 3 of the ABC Rules, 2001. The Municipal
-: 76 :-
Commissioner while exercising powers under the relevant
provisions of the KMC Act, 1976, would have to also bear
in mind the provisions of the 1960 Act and ABC Rules,
2001 for culling of dogs. Even with regard to sterilized and
vaccinated stray dogs which are creating nuisance or biting
children and adults, the local Authority, such as the
respondent-BBMP, is empowered to exterminate such dogs
in a humane manner as contemplated in Rule 9 of the ABC
Rules, 2001. It is made clear that the Animal Welfare
Organisations have no role to play in the decision with
regard to culling of the complaint oriented dogs except to
ensure that they are destroyed in a humane manner on
the orders of the Commissioner of the Municipal
Corporation.
50. Indeed if the Animal Welfare Organisations
strictly implement the ABC Rules, 2001 and perform their
duties by vaccinating and sterilizing the stray dogs/street
dogs, the nuisance caused by such dogs would in a course
of time, be automatically eradicated. Sterilization, in a due
-: 77 :-
course of time, would bring down the number of dogs and
vaccination would ensure the health of the existing dogs
and save people from adverse effects in the event of a dog
bite. But unless sterilization programme is taken to its
logical conclusion, the menace of stray dogs, their
nuisance and dog bites would continue. It is in this
context, that even Section 11 of the 1960 Act, permits
extermination of such dogs by the local authorities but in a
humane and not in a cruel manner. We are of the view
that the destruction of such dogs, which are identified by
the Municipal Corporation as per the method prescribed in
Rule 9 of the ABC Rules, 2001 is a humane method.
51. During the course of submission, it was also
brought to our notice that one of the reasons for the
unruly behaviour of stray dogs is on account of garbage
deposits on the streets of Bangalore and the conflict
between the dogs in search of food therein. Infact, this
Court is seized of petitions in public interests with regard
to the crisis in the disposal of garbage that the Metropolis
-: 78 :-
is facing. Nevertheless, we would like to refer to the
Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules,
2000, which have come into force on 03/10/2000, enacted
under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, by the Central Government, to regulate the
management and handling of municipal solid waste.
52. Under Rule 4 of the said Rules, it is stated that
every Municipal Authority, within its territorial area, is
responsible for the implementation of these Rules and for
any infrastructure development for collection, storage,
segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of
municipal solid wastes. Clause (xv) of Rule 3 defines
“municipal solid waste”, to include the commercial and
residential wastes generated in a municipal or notified
areas in either solid or semisolid form excluding industrial
hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical
wastes. The Secretary - incharge of the Department of
Urban Development, is entrusted with the overall
-: 79 :-
responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of
these Rules in the Metropolitan Cities.
53. The municipal solid waste generated in the city
has to be managed and handled in accordance with the
compliance criteria and procedure laid down in Schedule II
inter alia, encompasses collection of municipal solid waste
from house to house, from slums, bulk generators such as,
hotels, restaurants, office complexes and commercial
areas. The next step after collection of Municipal Solid
Waste is its storage, transportation and processing and
finally, disposal of such wastes. Infact, in Schedule II,
sub-clause (viii) of Clause 1 of Parameter 1, states that a
stray animal shall not be allowed to move around waste
storage facilities or any other place in the city or town and
shall be managed in accordance with the State laws.
Therefore, it is the duty of the B.B.M.P., to ensure that
there is no accumulation of municipal solid waste and/or
garbage on the streets of Bangalore. This would
ameliorate the tendency of the street dogs having conflicts
-: 80 :-
among themselves while in search for food and curb their
tendency for unruly behaviour and thereby, help in the
eradication of cases of stray dog nuisance as well as dog
bites.
54. Therefore, these writ petitions could be disposed
of by issuing the following directions:-
(1) The Animal Welfare Organisations and the
Monitoring Committee as contemplated
under the ABC Rules, 2001 to ensure
complete sterilization and vaccination of all
healthy stray dogs, particularly, within the
territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP as per
Rules 7 and 8.
(2) It is advisable to entrust the responsibility
of sterilization and vaccination to NGO’S or
other agencies in a decentralized manner.
A Report of their activities must be
submitted to the BBMP on a regular basis
for the latter’s scrutiny and verification.
-: 81 :-
(3) Stray dogs which are incurably ill or
mortally wounded as diagnosed by a
qualified veterinarian to be euthanized in
terms of Rule 9 of the said ABC Rules,
2001.
(4) Furious or dumb rabid dogs to be dealt
with in terms of the Rule 10 of the said
Rules;
(5) Dogs which do not come within the scope
of Rule 9 or 10 but which are a menace or
cause nuisance irrespective of whether
there is evidence of such dogs having
mauled or bitten children or adults could
be exterminated in the manner specified
in Rule 9 of the ABC Rules, 2001 under
the orders of the Commissioner of the
BBMP as per the provisions of KMC Act,
1976.
(6) The BBMP must take serious note of
complaints with regard to unruly stray
-: 82 :-
dogs by setting up a complaint cell in
various zonal offices of the B.B.M.P, and
act in accordance with law and also having
regard to the observations made herein
above, particularly having regard to
Section 11 of 1960 Act read with Rules 9
and 10 of the ABC Rules 2001 in the
matter of culling of stray dogs.
(7) Having regard to the interpretation given
by us, to the Central as well as the State
Laws, Rule 7 of ABC Rules 2001 does not
require to be struck down. But sterilization
and vaccination of stray dogs must be
carried out on a regular basis and by
holding additional camps for such purpose
at the initiative of the B.B.M.P.
(8) The BBMP to ensure that the Rules for
clearance of Municipal Solid Waste be
enforced, so that garbage found in the
-: 83 :-
city of Bangalore, is not a reason for stray
dog menace.
(9) The BBMP to frame guidelines for the
grant of compensation to the victims of
attacks by the stray dogs
(10) The owners of dogs to ensure that their
pet dogs are not a menance or cause
nuisance in public places. It would be
mandatory for the owners of the dogs to
take out their dogs on public roads or
public places along with a leash and not
let their dogs loose on the streets, so as
to avoid a confrontation with street dogs
or other pet dogs
(11) The citizens must also bear in mind that
street dogs also have a right to live and
therefore, must refrain from attacking
these dogs by stone throwing or by
beating etc. They must ensure that
-: 84 :-
children do not go near the stray dogs
either to play with them or to feed them.
55. The Petitioner in W.P.No.37197/2011, is at
liberty to seek enhancement of compensation by making a
representation to the BBMP or by availing of any other
remedy in accordance with law.
56. These writ petitions are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- JUDGE
*mvs
Index: Y/N
