The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, for the compassionate treatment of animals and the balanced coexistence of animals and humans.

ORDER :

This Court on 18th November, 2015, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, had issued certain directions. Thereafter, the Court observed thus:-

"Learned counsel appearing for both the sides are at liberty to file affidavits which may contain the data of the dog bites and the steps taken by the local bodies with regard to destruction/removal of the stray dogs. They are also at liberty to file data pertaining to population of stray dogs. The local authorities shall file affidavits including what kind of infrastructures they have provided, as required under the law. Needless to emphasize, no innovative method or subterfuge should be adopted not to carry out the responsibility under the 1960 Act or the 2001 Rules. Any kind of laxity while carrying out statutory obligations, is not countenanced in law.

A copy of the order passed today be sent to the Chief Secretary of each of the States and the competent authority of Union Territories, so that they can follow the same in letter and spirit."

2. In pursuance of our order, the State of Orissa, the New Delhi Municipal Council (N.D.M.C.), South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Bombay Municipal Corporation (B.M.C.) have filed their responses. It is submitted by Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the B.M.C. that under Section 9(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, (for short, 'the Act') the Animal Welfare Board (for short, 'the Board') is to cooperate with the local authorities. Section 9, as has been stated in the earlier orders, deals with the functions of the Board. Clause (h) of Section 9 of the Act reads as follows:

"9(h) to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies established for the purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals or for the protection of animals and birds."

3. It is urged by Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel that the Board works with the aid and assistance of Animal Welfare Organization, which has been defined under Rule 2(b) of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules read as under:-

"6. Obligations of the local authority.- (1) The local authority shall provide for-

(a) establishment of a sufficient number of dogs pounds including animal kennels/shelters which may be managed by animal welfare organisations;

(b) requisite number of dogs vans with ramps for the capture and transportation of street dogs;

(c) one driver and two trained dog catchers to be provided for each dog van;

(d) an ambulance-cum-clinical van to be provided as mobile center for sterilisation and immunisation;

(e) incinerators to be installed by the local authority for disposal of carcasses.

(f) periodic repair of shelter or pound.

(2) If the Municipal Corporation or the local authority thinks it expedient to control street dog population, it shall be incumbent upon them to sterilise and immunise street dogs with the participation of animal welfare organisations, private individuals and the local authority.

(3) The animal welfare organisations shall be reimbursed the expenses of sterilisation/immunisation at a rate to be fixed by the Committee on fortnightly basis based on the number of sterilisation/immunisation done.

(4) The Monitoring committee of the said locality shall meet at least once in every month to assess the progress made in regard to implementation of the Animal Birth Control Programme."

4. Submission of Mr. Naphade is that it is the duty of the Board and the Animal Welfare Organization to assist the local authorities and not to create impediment. We are sure that the Board and the Animal Welfare Organization shall act within the parameters of the Act and the Rules.

5. In course of hearing, we have been apprised that the real problem is the implementation of the Act and the Rules. Learned counsel for the parties very fairly stated that the litigation is not adversial, but the purpose is to see that the Acts and Rules are appositely implemente