In a dispute between a housing society and its members over feeding stray dogs and feeding points, the Bombay High Court has stated that it would be an obligation of the residents of the society to always make provisions for adequate water to be made available to the animals, especially considering the onset of the summer season.
In its decision recently, a division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and R N Laddha acknowledged the petitioner’s, an animal lover, assertion that she would like to supply drinking water to the dogs.
“The parties must resolve the dispute amicably because drinking water should not be denied to the dogs,” the court observed.
The court was hearing two petitions, one brought by RNA Royale Park Cooperative Housing community Limited and another by Paromita Puthran, an animal lover and resident of the same community, who was represented by Advocate Nishad Nevagi. Puthran claimed to be responsible for 18 dogs.
While leaving most of the issues to be resolved amicably between the parties, with the assistance of a stray dog welfare NGO, the court did direct the society to investigate complaints about its own security guards hitting the animals with a stick and take appropriate action against them.
The bench described it as inflicting cruelty on the animals and stated that it would intensify the animals’ behaviour.
“This would be necessary because we are of the firm belief that such coercive methods would unquestionably amount to animal cruelty. Apart from that, such tactics utilised by Security Guards or any other person would intensify the behaviour of the animals, in addition to inflicting cruelty on the animals,” the bench stated.
On the society’s contention that the Municipal Corporation should be directed to take appropriate measures for dog vaccination and sterilisation, as well as to consider any other grievances, the court directed the Municipal Corporation’s Designated Officer to hear the parties and make an appropriate decision on all issues after considering the views of the animal welfare NGO.
During a hearing on the issue last month, the bench stated that hating stray dogs and/or treating them cruelly is never an acceptable approach from members of civil society.
“If the Society continues to take any coercive measures as noted above and by physical force, persons such as the petitioner are prevented from taking care of these animals, and/or from pursuing such activity which is wholly permissible in law, such actions on their part would not only be contrary to the provisions of law, but would also amount to commission of an offence,” the court had then observed.
The court further noted that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, enacted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, provide for the feeding of community animals and the establishment of feeding locations.
