Digitally signed by MULEY MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO SHUBHAM 1 205-WP-1578-2000.doc PRAVINRAO D 20a 2te 5: .03.03

14:23:30 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1578 OF 2000 Anandrao Kharade ...Petitioner Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 152 OF 2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1578 OF 2000 Anandrao Kharade ...Petitioner Vs.

Bombay Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ...Respondent WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 175 OF 2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1578 OF 2000 Anandrao Kharade ...Petitioner Vs.

The All India Animal Welfare Association ...Respondent -----------------

None for the Petitioner Ms. Oorja Dhond for Respondent No.1.

Smt. Prachi Takke, Addl.G.P. for State.

Mr. Zal Andhyarujina (Amicus Curiae) a/w Ms. Serena Jethmalani and Mr.

Karan Bhide. -----------------

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C.:-

1. None for the Petitioner.

2. Since the captioned Petition is of the year 2000, and was today on board for final hearing, we decided to take up the same and examine the Petitioner’s grievance as set out therein.

3. A perusal of the record shows that the Petition was registered as a suo moto Writ Petition on the basis of an article published on 6th July 2000 in the Lokmat Newspaper. The said article essentially highlighted (i) the growing population of stray dogs in the city of Mumbai (ii) the increase in the incidents of stray dog bites and (iii) that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) was adequately dealing with both these issues.

4. We requested Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Learned Senior Counsel to assist us in the matter given. Mr. Andhyarujina assisted by Ms. Jethmalani and Mr. Bhide then informed us that much water had flown under the bridge since this Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the said newspaper article. He then submitted a detailed note setting out the developments which had taken place since this Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the said article. The note sets out that the Central Government had in the year 2001 enacted the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 (“the 2001 Rules”) in exercise of the powers under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The 2001 Rules were subsequently superseded by the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 (“the 2023 Rules”) which inter alia provide a robust grievance redressal mechanism on all issues concerning stray dogs, including the control of stray dog population (through animal birth, control programmes), resolution of human-dog conflict, and the safety and welfare of stray dogs.

5. The note further sets out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a batch of Writ Petitions, concerning various issues with respect to stray dogs, has in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India & Anr. vs People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors., [Civil Appeal No.5988 of 2019] taken note of the

2023 Rules and inter alia held as follows :

“9. Well, all this was prior to 10.03.2023, on which date, the Annual Birth Control Rules, 2023, stand notified by the Central Government, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal husbandry and Dairying, and now in force

10. Considering all the intervening developments and more specifically the enactment of the new Rules putting in place mechanism for preventing the infliction of unnecessary pains and sufferings on animals, more specifically the canines, we intend to close the instant proceedings leaving it open for each one of the parties to pursue their remedies on occasion so arises, if so advised, before the Constitutional Courts, other Forums having respective jurisdiction, in accordance with law.

11. We only hasten to add, that under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place. There is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassi