Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pca in People For Elemination Of Stray ... vs State Of Goa By Its Chief Secretary & Ors on 19 December, 2008Matching Fragments
24. Referring to the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules submitted the learned that ig Solicitor General the said Rules have been framed by of India has the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sectin 38(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Section 38(2) (ea) of the PCA Act provides for making of rules by the Central Government in the matters of the other methods of destruction of stray dogs referred to in clause (b) of sub-section 3 of Section 11. According to Mr.Vahanvati, the rules enacted under Section 38 of the PCA Act lay down a scientific and holistic scheme to reduce dog population by sterilization and immunization of stray dogs by participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and local authorities, and the scheme formulated under these Rules is not intended to jeopardize human life but at the same time to treat animals with care, compassion and in a humane manner so ( 28 ) as to achieve a gradual reduction and stabilization in the population of stray dogs on a long term basis. The learned Solicitor General Mr.Vahanvati has further submitted that these rules are based on the guidelines formulated by this Court in Writ Petition No.1596/1998 and are in confirmity with the "Guidelines for Dog Population Management" published by World Health Organization (WHO) and WSPA in 1990. Elaborating Rule 3(3) of the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules-2001 Mr.Vahanvati, the learned Solicitor General has contended that the said Rule 3(3) states that street dogs shall be sterilized and immunized by participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and the local authority. He has further submitted that Rule 7 of the ABC (Dog) Rules lays dows an detailed and comprehensive procedure for the capturing/sterilisation/ immunization /release of dogs, and Rule 9 thereof deals with euthanasia of Street Dogs, which reads as under:-
48. Referring to Section 11(3) (b) of the PCA Act, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chinoy has submitted that the said section 11(3) Rules do not conflict with and are not ultra vires
(b) of the PCA Act. Section 11(3) (b) does not mandate the killing of stray dogs. Referring and relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of UP V/s.Babu Ram Upadhyay - AIR 1961 SC 751 and followed in State of Tamil Nadu V/s.M/s.Hind Stone and Others - (1981) 2 SCC 205, it is his contention that the Rules made under the statute must be treated for all purposes of construction or obligation exactly as if they were in the Act and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act and are to be judicially noticed for all purposes of construction or obligation. According to him the rules once notified must therefore be treated as if they are contained in the Act. Further, it is contended by Mr.Chinoy, the learned Senior Counsel that the Rules being a part of the PCA Act have to be read harmoniously with the other ( 47 ) provisions of the PCA Act including Section 11(3)(b) of the said Act, and accordingly, the stray dog population is to be curbed by the dog birth control program and only the incurably ill, mortally wounded and rabid dogs may be destroyed and not all the stray dogs.
74. Mr.Singhvi, the learned Sr.Counsel has thereafter vehemently submitted that, assuming without admitting that ABC Rules are intra-vires the PCA Act and are in conflict with Section 191-BA of the BMC Act, then also the provisions of Section 191-BA of the BMC Act will ( 68 ) prevail over the ABC Rules, because the PCA Act under which ABC Rules were framed, came into force in the year 1960 whereas Section 191-BA of the BMC Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature by Maharashtra Act number 51 of 1975, and the said Maharashtra Act, having received the assent of the President on the 17th October 1975 came into force on 1st November, 1975 and thus under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, Section 191-BA of the BMC Act would prevail in the State of Maharashtra over the PCA Act and the ABC Rules made there under.
(a) If Section 11(3) (b) and (c) of the PCA Act expressly provide that the provisions of Section 191(BA) of the BMC Act will prevail over whatever is contained in Section 11(1) of the PCA Act and if that be so, the subordinate legislation framed under Section 38 of the PCA Act can never prevail over Section 191(BA) of the BMC Act.