Bombay High Court
Courts On Its Own Motion vs Union Of India Ministry Of Cetnral ... on 17 October, 2018
Author: S.M.Modak
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, S.M.Modak
12-pil 93-16.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.93 OF 2016
Court on its own motion -Vs.- The Union of India and ors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.S.Sanyal, amicus curiae for the petitioner
Mr. N.P. Lambat, counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5
Mr. M.Y.Wadodkar, counsel for respondent no.9
Mr.U.M. Aurangabadkar, ASGI for respondent no.8.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
S.M.MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 17.10.2018.
1. Mr.Sanyal learned amicus curiae is seeking time to study the matter more effectively to assist the Court.
2. However, after some hearing, we find that Ministry of Defence has placed on record documents which is subject of euthanasia of animals by army. It is dated 20th January 2017.
3. Learned ASGI has invited our attention to orders passed by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 6305 of 2015 and other connected matters on 9.9.2015. There, learned ASG appearing for Union of India had made statement that a detailed proposal to eliminate euthanasia of old and worn out army animals and their suitable Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:45:04 ::: 12-pil 93-16.odt 2/3 rehabilitation during their life time was under active consideration.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Lambat has invited our attention to a similar policy prevailing in Railway under standing order no. 84 for Railway Protection Force. The policy speaks of identification of NGO's for rehabilitation of cast and boarded out army animals.
5. Respective counsel however, agree that no such policy is still framed.
6. The dog by name ''Reno'' labrador working in Railway Protection force was occasion for entertaining this matter. Unfortunately, he is no more and he was looked after by a private individual during his lifetime.
7. In this situation, we find that even after orders passed by Delhi High Court period of morethan three years is expired. Hence, we direct respondent nos.1 to 6 and 8 to frame appropriate policy in this respect within a period of 6 months.
8. In the meanwhile, if after retirement the animals like dogs, horse, etc. are being left unattended, concern department should be permitted to device an ad-hoc policy so that the animals are well looked after.
Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:45:04 ::: 12-pil 93-16.odt 3/3
9. With these directions and appreciating the assistance rendered by learned amicus curiae Mr.Sanyal, we dispose of the public interest litigation.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:45:04 :::