IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional A.G., Haryana.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Fetching grievance from the letter/communication dated 19.05.2025, (Annexure P-8) issued by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Badhsahpur, Gurugram (respondent No.2), who is the Chairman of the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, which embodied directions to the Chief Medical Officer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, for shifting back the stray dogs to Taksila Heights (Society where members of the petitioner-Association reside), after vaccination/sterilization, the place from where they were captured, the petitioner-Resident Welfare Association of the Society, has filed the instant petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the letter/communication (supra)

2. The directions (supra), are mainly challenged on the ground that the same have been issued, without any jurisdiction, and without complying with the requisite conditions, as encapsulated in Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Rules of 2023’). As much as, the directions (supra), have been passed in contravention of the Haryana Municipal (Registration and Proper Control of Dogs) Bye-laws, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Bye-laws of 2005’), which, according to the petitioner-Association, ought to have been adhered to in letter and spirit by the authorities concerned, before issuing the directions (supra).

Factual Matrix

3. Before embarking upon the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apposite to make a compendious study of the factual background of the case at hand, which led the authorities concerned to draw the impugned letter/communication.

4. In an unfortunate incident that occurred on dated 22.09.2024, one of the stray dogs, housed in the Society in question, attacked an eight years old child, who is an inhabitant of the Society, and bit her oppressively. The child was taken to Fortis Hospital, Gurugram, for treatment, and as per the medical report, the injuries suffered by the child were on account of dog bite. Thereafter, after about a month, i.e. on 20.10.2024, mother of the child lodged a complaint to the concerned Police Station with regard to the aforesaid incident. But, in the interregnum, on the request of the parents of the child and other residents of the Society, a Non-Governmental Organization, “Umeed for Animals Foundation” captured six stray dogs therefrom, for their safe keeping, protection and welfare. According to the petitioner, the NGO maintains a dedicated place for relocation of street dogs and their rehabilitation, though there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. However, the act of shifting of six stray aggressive dogs, trigged one of the residents of the Society, namely Ms. Garima Tripathi, to file a complaint on dated 24.09.2024, thereby, alleging that parents of the victim child and other residents of the Society, had beaten up, and thrown the dogs out of the premises of the said Society, in violation of the Rules of 2023, and even the CCTV cameras were shut down, at the time of said incident, in order to avoid creation of any evidence. Moreover, the people, who were trying to capture the videos of the said incident, were also threatened and were asked to delete the footage.

5. Accordingly, taking cognizance of the matter, an FIR No.679, dated 09.11.2024, under Section 325 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 11(1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1960’), was registered at Police Station, Sector-10, Gurugram. In order to unearth the truth, the