O R D E R

The lis on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the notice issued by the respondent-Executive Officer, asking the petitioner- Trust to remove the Stray Dogs, numbering 41, kept in their premises, within a period of three days, failing which actions will be initiated against the petitioner-Trust.

2. The petitioner is a Trust set up with an objective of promoting and ensuring the welfare of the Stray/Injured/Ill animals by way of a Trust Deed dated 27.09.2021, which was registered with the Office of the Sub Registrar of Thirukazhukundram.

3. The petitioner states that the Founder Trustee of the petitioner-Trust has rented the space in 185/2A, Kuttaikarai Street, Pavalakkaran Chatram, Poonjeri, Mammallapuram, Chengalpattu – 603 104 on behalf of the petitioner-Trust, for providing shelter for dogs, which were abandoned/hurt/ill and rescued by the petitioner-Trust. Currently, the shelter houses, 41 dogs and the nutrition and care that is required by those dogs are provided meticulously.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Trustee of the petitioner-Trust is an 'Animal Lover' and taking care of the Street Dogs and when the Trust is functioning for the welfare of the Stray Dogs, the petitioner may be permitted to continue the activities of the Trust. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments informed that if the neighbours are disturbed on account of continuous barking and other smell or any other reasons, the petitioner is ready and willing to shift the subject premises within a reasonable period of time.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the neighbours are abusing frequently and they are not in a position to continue the activities of the Trust in the subject premises and therefore, the petitioner-

Trust undertakes that they will shift the premises, within a reasonable period of time.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that 41 dogs are housed in the premises and it may cause nuisance to the neighbours and the petitioner is also facing abusement from the neighbours, the petitioner may be provided with sufficient time for shifting the street dogs.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not obtained any license from the Competent Authorities of the Municipality under the provisions of the Act and Rules. Under these circumstances, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that keeping 41 dogs in the nearby residential area without license is impermissible and the respondent is receiving frequent complaints from the neighbours and other persons and therefore, the respondent has issued the impugned notice. The impugned notice has been issued within the powers conferred under the Act and therefore, the petitioner has to remove the dogs from the subject premises immediately.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on the judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 in Crl.R.C.No.1195 of 2009, wherein the similar facts were considered and this Court observed as under:-

“23. It is not in dispute that public nuisance may be an annoyance, by way of unbearable noise or emitting foul smell. The barking and howling of dogs at the residential area is certainly be construed as a public nuisance, since it is an annoyance to public at the residential area. Keeping number of dogs in a residential area would also emit foul smell, injurious to the public health. It cannot be said by the petitioner that there was no howling or barking by the dogs or no emitting of foul smell, since more number of dogs were kept nearby the residence of the respondents 1 to 3. In a civilized society, every one has a right to live peacefully without noise pollution and health hazardous atmosphere, which has been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

24. Even the conduct of