Karnataka High Court
Master Jishnu G vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 7 December, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :- R
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.)
-: 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 :-
ORDER
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