**************************************** For more information/links, see http://goanet.netfirms.com ****************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Documented by Goa Desc Documentation Service & circulated by Goa Civic & Consumer Action Network (GOA CAN)<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ph:2252660 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ban on killing of stray dogs needs reconsideration, says HC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a significant judgment, the Panaji bench of the Bombay High Court has opined that an earlier ruling of the High Court which prohibited killing of stray dogs needs reconsideration and observed that the issue of stray dog menace is a fit case for referring the matter to a larger bench. The verdict is a fallout of a petition filed by the convener of the People for Elimination of Stray Trouble (PEST), Dr Rosario Menezes.
The PEST, in its petition, stated that the government and local bodies had failed in their duty to confine and eliminate stray dogs/cattle. The petitioners also pointed out plight of the victims of dog bite. Besides this, the petitioner also prayed to restrain the animal welfare organisations (AWOs) from interfering with the local bodies while they discharge their obligation towards controlling the stray dog menace.
In its judgment, a division bench comprising Mr Justice D G Deshpande and Mr P V Hardas held that it is true that the animals should not be subjected to unnecessary sufferings or pain, but when the question arises between suffering of a man or whole lot of human population on one side and suffering of animals, particularly the stray dogs on the other side, then looking to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and three important municipal legislations (The Goa Municipalities Act, Maharashtra Municipalities Act and Bombay Municipal Corporation Act) then the prayers in this petition cannot be said to be unreasonable or cruel.
The court said that pet animals are an asset to the society. It is also true that animals are required to be protected from unnecessary pain and suffering. It is equally true that love and compassion for animals is growing and is a sign of culture and civilization. However, when it comes to choosing between human beings and suffering they undergo, particularly due to the bite of stray dogs, either they being rabid dogs or affected by rabies, then, obviously weightage will have to be given for the suffering of the human beings.
The court further observed the question, in our opinion, is not of disallowing AWO from working in direction which they are doing. However, the crucial question is whether the sterilisation alone can be the only solution to the grave and serious problem and the answer is, obviously, negative.
In an important observation, the court also held The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, does not prohibit at all extermination or destruction of stray dogs. Therefore is no legal impediment in that regard. In course of arguments, it was pointed out to the High Court by the parties that in an earlier judgment of this court in Viniyg Parivar Trust and another's case, it was ordered that no stray dogs shall be killed as a rule, subject to the exception of critically ill, violent, fatally injured or rabid dogs. It was also argued that dog killing has come to an end following this judgment.
Dealing with this contention, the court explained that a perusal of this judgment (of Viniyg Parivar Trust and another case) shows that it is an order in terms of comprehensive guidelines submitted by consent of the parties to the said petition.
In our considered opinion, the judgment rendered by this court (in Viniyg Parivar Trust) needs reconsideration as certain provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the provision of different municipalities Act were, possibly, not brought to the notice of the learned judges, the bench noted.
The court said, considering all the issues involved, the seriousness of the problem of stray dogs, the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Goa Municipalities Act, Bombay Municipalities Act and Maharashtra Municipalities Act and the scope and the object of the aforesaid enactments, this is a fit case for referring the matter to a larger bench so that larger bench can decide whether in the circumstances and the seriousness of the problem and the danger posed and menace caused by stray dogs requires to be checked by resorting to provision of sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and other provision of the Municipalities Act or whether the elimination or killing of the stray dogs has to be totally prohibited in spite of the aforesaid provisions.
The High Court further directed the registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for further and necessary action of formation of larger bench to consider the issues. ------------------------------------------- The Navhind Times 18/03/03 -------------------------------------------
======================================= GOA DESC RESOURCE CENTRE Documentation + Education + Solidarity 11 Liberty Apts., Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403 507 Tel: 2252660 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.goadesc.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Working On Issues Of Development & Democracy =======================================
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.goanet.org/mailman/listinfo/goanet
