Back
2005 Supreme(Bom) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (Pest)
Versus
State of Goa
Decided Date: 13/10/05
The main legal point established in the judgment is the active consideration of the issue of stray dogs by the Supreme Court of India and the statutory rules framed in 2001 for the control of stray animal menace.
Headnote:
Stray Dogs - Animal Welfare - The court considered the issue of stray dogs in the State of Maharashtra and Goa, in light of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, and noted that the matter was under active consideration of the Supreme Court of India. The court adjourned the matter for further orders.
Fact of the Case:
The court was addressing the issue of stray dogs in the State of Maharashtra and Goa, considering the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. The matter was also under active consideration of the Supreme Court of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter was actively considered by the Supreme Court of India and that an action plan for the control of stray animal menace, including dogs, had been laid down by the Government of India. As there was no challenge to the statutory rules framed in 2001, the court adjourned the matter for further orders.
Issues: The issues raised in the case related to the problem created by stray dogs and the validity of the statutory rules framed in 2001, considering the active consideration of the matter by the Supreme Court of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to adjourn the matter, considering the active consideration of the issue by the Supreme Court of India and the action plan for the control of stray animal menace laid down by the Government of India.
Final Decision: The court adjourned the matter for further orders, allowing the parties to amend the pleadings if they so desired.
V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.
( 1 ) THIS Bench was constituted to consider two questions framed by the Division Bench of this Court addressing itself to the menace or problem and danger created by existence of stray dogs in the State of maharashtra and Goa. Basically, the reference was required because subsequent division Bench then that which presided in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998, thought it fit that certain provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act have not been placed before the Division Bench deciding Writ petition No. 1596 of 1998.
( 2 ) HOWEVER, during the pendency of this petition the judgment and Writ petition No. 1596 of 1998 was affirmed by Supreme Court of India and thereafter the Government of India issued Rules under the Prevention of Cruelty of animals Act, 1960 for Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. Substantially these rules were brought into existence to give statutory effect to the guidelines given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998.
( 3 ) FURTHER we are informed today that two writ petitions on the original side of the Supreme Court of India filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are pending wherein several orders have been made by the Supreme Court of india which indicates that the matter is under active consideration of the supreme Court of India. In such circumstances our addressing ourselves to the issues raised may not be necessary or proper at this juncture. The problem created by stray dogs have been actively considered and Action plan for Control of Stray Animal Menace which include dogs has been laid down by the Government of India. This action plan also takes note of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998. Apart from the fact that there is no challenge to the statutory rules framed in 2001 which is after reference was made to consider any constitutional challenges to the validity of any enactment when the matter is under active consideration of the Supreme Court of India. In our opinion, there is no other alternative but to adjourn the matter. The matter be listed for further orders on 13th December, 2005. The parties are at liberty to appropriately amend the pleadings if they so desire. Order accordingly.
