Uttarakhand High Court
Girish Chandra Kholia vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Writ Petition (PIL) No.84 OF 2017
3rd November, 2022
Girish Chandra Kholia ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Gopal K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned DAG for the State.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay
Singh Bisht, learned counsel for Nagarpalika Nainital.
Mr. Percy Billimoria, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra
Barthwal, Ms. J. Damkewale and Ms. Esha Dutte learned
counsel for respondent no. 8.
ORDER:(Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.) A compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 to report compliance of our order dated 13.07.2022. A perusal of the said affidavit shows that respondent no. 2 has merely issued instructions for compliance of our said order, without actually reporting any compliance.
2. Mr. Chauhan submits that the specific direction was issued in relation to Nagarpalika Nainital for conducting a survey of stray dogs in the town; to identify and remove only the aggressive dogs; and, to place them in a dog pound.
3. We do not find any merit in this submission. Since we also issued a direction that the State shall implement the aforesaid directions throughout all the municipalities, we direct the State to file a better affidavit reporting compliance of the directions contained in our order dated 13.07.2022.
4. Mr. Billimoria has taken us through the affidavit filed by Ms. Gauri Maulekhi-respondent no. 8, in compliance of our order dated 21.09.2022. The respondent no.8 has placed on record the e-mail communication sent by her on 27.09.2022 to Dr. Abhay Kumar, Technical Consultant M&E, National Health Mission, Uttarakhand and the response received thereto.
5. The response to the aforesaid communication by Dr. Abhay Kumar has disclosed that the number of dog bites recorded to the State of Uttarakhand, in one year- between 01.09.2021 to 31.08.2022, by the National Rabies Control Program (NRCP), is 39,488.
6. Mr. Billimoria submits that this figure is doubtful, for the reason, that it does not give a breakup of dog bites by domesticated/pet dogs, and by stray dogs 2 separately. He further submits that the figures provided by Dr. Abhay Kumar also do not indicate the data of bites by other animals.
7. We do not find any merit in either of these submissions. We are concerned with the instances of dog bites. Domesticated dogs are not known to resort to biting, generally. Such instances are clearly identified and there is ownership of responsibility of such instances. The response of Dr. Abhay Kumar - that the data with regard to bites by other animals is not available, does not mean that the data with regard to dog bites maintained by the National Rabies Control Program would include bites by other animals. In fact, the figure of 39,488, in our view, represents not the complete picture, inasmuch as, the said data relates to only those victims of dog bites, who proceeded to obtain anti-rabies treatment. There would be many other cases of dog bites, where the people have not undertaken the anti-rabies treatment following a dog bite. Those cases are, obviously, not reflected in the data maintained by the National Rabies Control Program.
8. The number of dog bites reported by National Rabies Control Program, at 39,488 within a year, is highly alarming for a small and sparsely populated State like Uttarakhand.
3
9. Mr. Billimoria has submitted that the only way to tackle the issue of dog bites is to resort to sterilization and vaccination, as that would control the stray dogs population and, eventually, diminish the same. He submits that in the State of Uttarakhand, a very high percentage i.e. 90% of the stray dogs have been sterilized.
10. The taste of the pudding lies in its eating. The number of stray dogs in the State is not reported to have fallen with passage of time. We can say, with our own experience of the town of Nainital, that the number of stray dogs is rather large, considering its size.
11. Mr. Billimoria has taken us through the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as also the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. A perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules shows that they address concerns relating to cruelty meted out to animals, and seek to deal with the problems relating to cruelty to animals-be it domesticated animals, or stray animals. In the entire Act and the Rules aforesaid, there is not a single provision, which deals with the specific concern raised in this petition, with which we are also concerned. The concern raised by the petitioner, which also concerns us, is the issue of dog bites by the 4 ferocious stray dogs, particularly, dog bites by stray dogs which are unprovoked. We do not find any prohibition in the aforesaid Act and Rules against placing those of the street dogs, which are found to be aggressive, in a dog pound, so as to save the people from the risk that such dogs pose to their life and liberty. It goes without saying, that all stray dogs are not aggressive. In fact, most are not. The only way to strike a balance between the rights of human beings, and the rights of such animals, is to separate them and to keep them in exclusivity, so as to avoid their contact with human beings. After all, even wild animals are either left in the jungles-where they are free, or placed in captivity-in a Zoo; lest they cause harm to human beings, or themselves suffer any harm. Placing of such dangerous and ferocious dogs-who have a history of attacking human beings unprovoked, in a dog pound cannot be called as cruel, just as placing a wild beast in captivity, cannot be described as being cruel. It is essential for the safety of human beings who may be living or moving around in the neighbourhood and for the safety of such a dog as well.
12. Mr. Billimoria points out that sterilization of dogs reduces their aggression. No doubt, that may be the case in most situations. However, there is no hard and 5 fast rule that every dog, once sterilized, becomes docile and loses his or her aggression. There are several instances where dogs, despite sterilization, continue to be excessively aggressive by their very nature. That is why instances of unprovoked dog bites by stray dogs of pedestrians and cyclists/scooterists, are not uncommon.
13. Mr. Patni, who appears for the Nagarpalika Nainital submits that the Nagarpalika has undertaken a survey of the stray dogs in the different wards of Nainital. There are 713 stray dogs in all the wards of Nainital, and 17 dogs have been identified as aggressive dogs, on the basis of the history of their bites, and on the basis of the complaints of the local population. He further submits that these dogs shall be removed and placed in a dog pound.
14. Mr. Billimoria raises concern with regard to the conditions in which these 17 dogs would be kept in dog pound, and their safety. The Nagarpalika Nainital shall ensure that the said dogs are properly fed and kept in acceptable conditions.
15. It shall be open to respondent no. 8 to inspect the dog pound in this regard. If any deficiency is pointed out by respondent no. 8, the same shall be addressed by the Nagarpalika.
6
16. While catching the said 17 identified aggressive dogs, trained persons shall be deployed, so as to ensure that the dogs do not suffer any injury while they are being lifted. Before the next date, a report of Veterinary Doctor concerned shall be obtained and placed on record with regard to the medical condition of the dogs, which are placed in the dog pound.
17. This direction equally applies to all the ULB's in the State, and shall be similarly implemented. The identification of the aggressive dogs shall also be done on the basis of their past bite history, and complaints and inputs from the local residents.
18. In light of the aforesaid, we again direct the State to sincerely implement the directions contained in our order dated 13.07.2022. It shall be open to respondent no.8 to advance submissions on the next date to bring in greater vigilance in the matter of implementation of our aforesaid order.
19. List on 03.01.2023.
________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_______________________ RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 3rd November, 2022 AK/BS 7