If feeding stray dogs is causing inconvenience to others, it is not good: court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that “it was rather strange that people feed stray dogs and allow them within the common area of a society, causing nuisance and inconvenience to others”.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice G. Rohini made the remark while hearing an appeal filed by a resident of Malviya Nagar seeking directions to the Delhi government and the municipal corporation to shift stray dogs from the parking area of his society to some other place.

Appeal

Petitioner Om Prakash Saini, a resident of Khirki Extension, had come to the court in appeal after a single judge refused to entertain his prayer for shifting of stray dogs.

“This is really a strange case. See, if you have a pet and you are feeding it, it is okay. But if you are feeding stray dogs and they are causing inconvenience to others, it is not good,” said the Chief Justice.

The Bench asked the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) what it has done upon receiving the petitioner’s representation.

When the SDMC said it cannot act without the permission of the Animal Welfare Board of India, which is based in Chennai, the court said, “If you need permission, take it and act. Show us what have you done.”

The Bench has now directed the Delhi government and the SDMC to file a counter to the petition.

Mr. Saini’s counsel Vishnu Sharma told the court that many locals fed stray dogs, due to which the animals entered the common parking area, terrace and stairs of the building where he resided. He said the stray dogs kept roaming around, creating “terror and biting people” on many occasions.

Bitten

Mr. Sharma added that the building and common area was filled with dog excreta and children were unable to study because of the barking. One person from the area was hospitalised for a week at AIIMS in November 2015 after being bitten by a dog.

Mr. Saini said the single judge had not entertained the petition as a Supreme Court judgment was being inferred by corporations in a manner that they cannot shift or eliminate stray animals as they are bound by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The Bench asked the petitioner to place before it the orders of the Supreme Court."