Office Notes, reports, orders SL. or proceedings Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS No or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPMS 3294/ 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate, i/b Mr.

Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State.

(2) Petitioners run a pet boarding facility at Dehradun. Their pet boarding facility has been directed to be sealed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 13.11.2025, which is impugned in this writ petition. Impugned order has been passed by invoking power under Section 29 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which reads as under:

“29. Power of court to deprive person convicted of ownership of animal.―(1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under this Act, the court, upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment, make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government and may, further, make such order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances.

(2) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made unless it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction under this Act or as to the character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal that the animal, it left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty.

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the court may also order that a person convicted of an offence under this Act shall, either permanently or during such period as is fixed by the order, be prohibited from having the custody of any animal of any kind whatsoever, or, as the court thinks fit, of any animal of any kind or species specified in the order.

(4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be made unless―

(a) it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction or as to the character of the said person or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal in relation to which he has been convicted that an animal in the custody of the said person is likely to be exposed to cruelty;

(b) it is stated in the complaint upon which the conviction was made that it is the intention of the complainant upon the conviction of the accused to request that an order be made as aforesaid; and (c) the offence for which the conviction was made was committed in an area in which under the law for the time being in force a licence is necessary for the keeping of any such animal as that in respect of which the conviction was made.

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any person in respect of whom an order is made under sub-section (3) shall have no right to the custody of any animal contrary to the provisions of the order, and if he contravenes the provisions of any order, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.

(6) Any court which has made an order under sub-

section (3) may at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, rescind or modify such order.

(3) There is no allegation that petitioners were found guilty of any offence under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Even otherwise also, Section 29 of the said Act cannot be invoked for sealing a pet boarding facility, as the said provision can be invoked only to deprive a person convicted of ownership of animal.

(4) In such view of the matter, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable.

(5) Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. (6) List on 16.2.2026.

(7) Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. This order, however, will have no effect on the custody of pet animals confiscated from the premises of the