The Punjab & Haryana High Court has emphasized the importance of compliance with its order regarding the minimum compensation of Rs.10,000 per tooth mark in cases involving dog bites.

While issuing a contempt notice, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat said, "...it is clarified that the court will not accept any justification for non-compliance, even if the same is based on some perceived true facts. It is also clarified that even if some appeal is pending anywhere, that shall also not be taken as a justification for non-compliance, unless operation of the order is stayed by the Appellate Court."

In 2023, the High Court issued several directives to the police for prompt handling of cases related to incidents of stray or wild animal menace in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. Regarding stray dog bites, the Court mandated a minimum compensation of Rs.10,000 per tooth mark. Additionally, for injuries where flesh has been pulled off the skin, the compensation was set at a minimum of Rs.20,000 per "0.2 cm" of the wound.

The Court resolved a total of 193 cases concerning incidents involving stray and wild animals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj expressed concern over the increasing menace caused by stray and wild animals, stating that despite a significant number of cases being reported and brought before the Courts, the State has displayed no willingness to tackle the issue.

They have opted to turn a blind eye while people suffer injuries daily, and they downplay the scale of the problem by underreporting incidents. Denying the existence of the problem does not resolve it but only exacerbates the suffering of the citizens.

The current contempt petition was filed after the petitioner Mohan Singh Jaswal was reportedly bitten by a street dog. Allegedly, the Chandigarh authorities did not respond when he sought compensation from them.

Jaswal had also petitioned the High Court, seeking directions for the UT authorities to provide compensation for the dog bite he allegedly suffered. However, in the contempt petition filed on May 24, it was mentioned that the authorities had claimed the request was forwarded to the Election Commission of India, citing the Model Code of Conduct.

"The respondents are taking the shield of Model Code of Conduct only in order to save their skin whereas as per the latest judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court, it has been held that the state cannot take the excuse of Model Code of Conduct as the same does not come in the way of compliance of judicial orders," the contempt plea added.

Considering the plea, the Court said that, "if the order is not complied with, the respondents (Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh and Commissioner, MC) shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing, to receive further orders in the contempt proceedings."

The matter is listed for September 23, for further consideration.

Jashandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

MOHAN SINGH JASWAL v. SHRI VINAY PARTAP SINGH IAS D.C. CHD AND ORS