The division bench of Bombay High Court headed by Justices Girish Kulkarni and R N Laddha, held that it would be an obligation of the residents of the society to always make provision for adequate water to be made available to the animals more particularly considering the onset of the summer season.

The bench while hearing a petition, filed by the petitioner, an animal lover that she would like to provide drinking water to the dogs. “…the parties need to amicably resolve the dispute as it should not be that drinking water is not provided to the dogs,” the court observed.

While leaving most of the issues to the parties to amicably resolve between themselves, with some intervention of a stray dog welfare NGO, the court did issue a direction to the society to entertain a complaint against its own security guards hitting the animals with a stick and take appropriate action against them.

“It should not be that drinking water is not provided to the dogs. It would be an obligation of the residents of the society to always make provision for adequate water to be made available to the animals more particularly considering the onset of the summer season,” the order stated.

“This would be necessary as we are of the clear opinion that such coercive methods would certainly amount to an act of cruelty to the animals. This apart, such methods being used by the Security Guards or any other persons would aggravate the behavior of the animals, apart from inflicting cruelty to the animals,” the bench said.

Case Brief:

In the said matter, the Society members approaches Court seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate measures in respect of vaccination, and sterilization of the stray dogs and also to consider any other grievances, the court asked the Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation to hear the parties and take an appropriate decision on all the issues after considering the views of the animal welfare NGO.

Last month, while hearing a matter on the Stary dogs, the Bench remarked- 

“If the Society continues to take any coercive measures as noted by us above and by physical force, persons like the petitioner are prevented from taking care of these animals, and/or from pursuing such activity which is wholly permissible in law, such actions on their part would not only be contrary to the provisions of law, but also, amount to commission of an offence,” the court had then observed.

The court was hearing two petitions – one filed by RNA Royale Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited and another by animal lover and a resident of the same society Paromita Puthran, who was represented by Advocate Nishad Nevagi. Puthran claimed to be caring for 18 dogs.

The court also sought compassion and cooperation from the housing society citing an example of one of the High Court judges who is known to feed a dog on Marine Drive, making people believe the dog is the judge's pet.

“Have you taken a round of the High Court? Have you seen the number of cats? ...they are sometimes sitting on the dais too. You take them anywhere they come back. They have a territorial affinity,” the court had asked during the last hearing, adding, “Ultimately you have to take care of animals. That's what the rules and act say.”

The court had also observed that The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides for the feeding of community animals and the designation of feeding spots.