Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

FACTS AND PLEADINGS

2. To appreciate the issues raised in all these cases it  is necessary to note the facts and pleadings raised in some of the Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.28255 of 2011 is being treated as the leading case of the first group whereas W.P(C) No.26164 of 2015 is being treated as the leading case representing the second group.

3. W.P(C) No.28255 of 2011 (M.R.Ajayan v. State of Kerala and others) has been filed by the petitioner, a journalist by profession and human right promoter raising concern of recurring attacks from stray dogs in Vypin Island. Different instances as reported in the newspapers of stray dog bite have been narrated. News item published in Metro Manorama dated 20.10.2011 and 21.10.2011 have been referred to wherein newspaper reported about serious injuries suffered by a small child on his neck on account of stray dog bite. In the Writ Petition reference of various other instances of dog bites and details of various incidents of stray dog menaces have been referred to. Instances of domestic animals bitten by stray dogs have also been mentioned. In this Public Interest Litigation various individual complaints sent to this Court to treat as Public  Interest Litigation have also been tagged under orders of the Chief Justice. Several individuals have also filed applications stating that people of the State are now living under the fear of stray dogs. Streets, lanes, passages of houses, bus-stand, railway station, school compound, hotel premises and other public places are crowded with wandering dogs who often become aggressive. They unexpectedly attack the pedestrians and make road accidents to the riders especially two wheelers. Petitioners complain that no measures are being taken by the local authorities to seize and kill the stray dogs. The local authorities are abdicating their statutory duties of removing and destroying the stray dogs. Petitioners allege that Kerala which is known as "God's own country" has now become "Dog's own country". There are more than 12 lakhs wandering dogs in public places. In every 50 metres wandering dogs can be seen on road sides and near heap of garbage which attracts stray dogs. It is further stated that one of the main reasons that hamper elimination of stray dogs is the involvement of group, so called pet lovers or  animal rights protection agencies, like animal welfare institutions, etc., who obstruct killing of stray dogs by local authorities. Human life is more valuable than life of a dog. There is no proper implementation of the 2001 Rules. Hence no effective check have been made on the ever increasing population of stray dogs. In the Writ Petition the following prayers have been made:

6. W.P(C) No.12302 of 2014 (Basil Attipetty @ Basil A.G. v. Local Self Government Department and Others) has been filed by a practicing Advocate of the High Court raising the issue of attack of stray dogs which according to the petitioner is alarmingly increasing day by day. The school children, women and other persons are repeatedly attacked by the stray dogs spread in the local regions of the Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations. Incidents of dog bites on small children and adults have been  narrated in the Writ Petition. Reference of attack of stray dog on a child having 3= years as reported in Malayala Manorama daily dated 03.05.2014 has been annexed with photographs. In the Writ Petition details of human beings dying of rabies after dog bite has been brought on the record. It is pleaded that in Ernakulam District alone in the year 2013 there has been instances of 4019 stray dog bites. Petitioner pleads that stray dogs be removed from public street by the local authorities to save valuable life of the human beings. Petitioner refers to a complaint submitted to the Grama Panchayats and Corporations. Petitioner also relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Animal Welfare Board of India and another v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and others (2006 KHC 561) where the Division Bench has held that there has to be more concern with the life of human being than that of stray dogs. The right to live as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a fundamental right and it would take precedence over Dog Rules. In the Writ Petition the following prayers have been made by the petitioner:

16. W.P(C) No.28720 of 2015 (Thichur Nazeer v. State of Kerala and Others) has been filed by a public  spirited individual raising concern about the menace of the stray dogs and suffering of victims of dog bite. Instances of various dog bite has been narrated in the Writ Petition. A statement made by Minister for Women and Child Development as published in newspaper has also been objected by the petitioner. The petitioner prays for a direction to the State and other State authorities to take necessary and effective steps to remove the stray dogs from public streets. Direction has also been sought to the State to issue circulars to local authorities to exterminate the stray dogs causing nuisance.

ISSUE NO.IV

71. As observed above, stray dogs roaming in public street have to be captured for purposes of vaccination and sterilization which is the obligation of the Local Authorities with the collaboration of Animal Welfare Board for implementing the animal birth control programme. However, all stray dogs are not required to be killed and killing of stray dogs has to be undertaken by the local authorities only in accordance with the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules. Rule 7 of the 2001 Rules clearly indicate that stray dogs have to be captured on receipt of complaint about the dog nuisance, dog bites, etc., and information about rabid dogs. We are of the view that all local authorities have to set up dog control cell to receive complaint about about the dog nuisance, dog bites, etc., and information about rabid dogs. If a complaint is received that a particular dog has beaten one or several persons it is the obligation of  the local authority to capture the dog, keep it in dog kennel or other specified places, sterilise it and then only release it at appropriate place. The Issue is answered accordingly. ISSUE NO.V