2010 Supreme(HP) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before (Division Bench)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
CWPIL No. 3/2009 Decided on:12.3. 2010.
Court on its own motion Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for
The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to control the population and menace of stray dogs, as per the relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
Headnote:
Stray Dogs - Municipal Corporation's Duty - Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 - The judgment discusses the duty of the Municipal Corporation to control the population and menace of stray dogs in Shimla town. It highlights the relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
Fact of the Case:
The Court took suo motu cognizance to address the issue of stray dogs in Shimla town, following instances of frequent dog bites. The petitioner argued that the respondents were remiss in their statutory duties, leading to an increasing population of stray dogs. The Court found that the Municipal Corporation had not taken necessary precautions to control the menace caused by stray dogs, resulting in a boy being bitten and traumatized.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held the Municipal Corporation responsible for not taking preventive measures to check the menace caused by stray dogs. It directed the Municipal Corporation to ensure that Shimla town is made free from stray dogs within six months and to provide necessary funds for the establishment of dogs' Pounds/Shelters/Kennels. It also awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the boy bitten by stray dogs.
Issues: The main issue was the Municipal Corporation's failure to control the population and menace of stray dogs, leading to instances of dog bites and trauma to individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to control the population of stray dogs as per the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. It held the Municipal Corporation responsible for negligence in preventing instances of dog bites and trauma.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to take necessary measures to make Shimla town free from stray dogs within six months, provide funds for the establishment of dogs' Pounds/Shelters/Kennels, and release compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the boy bitten by stray dogs.
Rajiv Sharma, J. The Court has taken suo motu cognizance to check and arrest the menace of stray dogs within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla on the basis of news item, which appeared in the daily Edition of “Amar Ujjala” dated 1.7.2009. The association of dog with the man is well known fact. Stray dogs tend to live in groups in a particular locality. They are familiar with their surroundings and they know how to find out the food in a particular locality. Of late, the behaviour of stray dogs has become very aggressive.
2. There are instances of frequent dogs biting. The young children and women are primarily attacked/bitten by the stray dogs. The price of vaccination after dog bite is time consuming and expensive. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that some of the persons cannot afford the treatment. The State Legislature has enacted the Act called “Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. 1994”. Section 304 of the Act reads thus: 304. (1) The Corporation may, by bye-laws made in this behalf, (a) require the registration by the registering authority appointed by the Commissioner in this behalf of all dogs kept within the municipal areas; (b) required that every registered dog shall wear a collar to which shall be attached a metal token to be issued by the registering authority, and fix the fee payable for the issue thereof; (c) require that any-dog which has not been registered or which is not wearing such token shall, if found in any public place be detained at a place set apart for the purpose ; and (d) fix the fee which shall be charged for such detention and provide that any such dog shall be liable to be destroyed- or -otherwise disposed of unless it is claimed and the fee in respect thereof is paid within one week. (2) The Commissioner may, (a) cause to be destroyed or to be confined for such period as he may direct, any dog or other animal which is, or is reasonably suspected to he, suffering from rabies, or which has been bitten by any dog or other animal suffering or suspected to be suffering from rabies ; (b) by public notice direct that, after such date-as may be specified in the notice, dogs which are without collars or without marks, distinguishing them as private property and are found straying on the streets or beyond the enclosures of the houses of their owners, if any, may be destroyed and cause them to be destroyed accordingly. (3) No damages shall be payable in respect of any dog or other animals destroyed or otherwise disposed of under this section. (4) No one, being the owner or person incharge of any dog, shall allow it to be at large in any public street or public place without being muzzled and without being secured by a chain lead in any case in which (a) he knows that the dog is likely to annoy or intimidate any person ; (b) the Commissioner has, by public notice during the prevalence of rabbies, directed that dogs shall not be at large without muzzled and chain leads. (5) No one shall (a) allow any ferocious dog which belongs to him or is in his charge to be at large without being muzzled; or (b) set on or urge any dog or other animal to attack, worry or intimidate any person ; or (c) knowing or having reason to believe that any dog or animal belonging to him or in his charge has been bitten by any animal suffering or reasonably suspected to be suffering from rabbies, fail or neglect to give immediate information of the fact to the Commissioner or give information which is false.” The Central Government has also framed the Rules called the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. Rule 2 (b) defines “Animal Welfare Organization” Rule 2(e) defines “Local Authority” and Rule 3 prescribes that all the dogs shall be classified: (i) Pet dogs. ii) Street dogs. Rule 4 requires the local authority to constitute a committee.
3. The functions of the committee are defined under Rule 5. Rule 6 provides for the obligation of the local authority. Rule 6 reads