Whether there is a public duty and/or statutory duty vested with the municipal authorities to safeguard the citizens residing in the area from attack by street dogs?
WP No. 110352 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DATED THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
Whether there is a
public duty and/or statutory duty vested with
the municipal authorities to safeguard the
citizens residing in the area from attack by
street dogs?
12.1.This Court vide its order dated 11.11.2020 has
already come to a prima facie conclusion that
the respondents more particularly respondents
No.1, 2 and 4 are liable to make payment of
compensation and directed to make payment of
interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along
with interest.
12.2. The aspect of whether the statutory authority
or municipal authority is responsible or not has
been dealt with in several cases.
12.3.The High Court of Bombay in MARUTI
SHRISHAILYA HALE AND OTHERS VS. THE
COMMISSIONER, SANGLI MIRAJ KUPWAD
- 11 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
CORPORATION AND OTHERS in
W.P.NO.4075/2015 has categorically held that
the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is not merely a right to
survive but extends to right to live a dignified
and meaningful life and as such, there is a
corresponding obligation on the State
Government and its agencies to ensure that the
said rights are not violated. In that case also a
child was attacked by stray dogs as a result of
which large number of injuries were caused
resulting in the death of the child. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court held that there was a
failure on the part of the municipal corporation
to perform its duties by not taking all possible
steps to curb the menace of stray dogs. The
Bombay High Court by referring to the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SMT.NILABATI
BEHERA @ LALITA BEHERA VS. STATE OF
ORISSA AND OTHERS reported in 1993 (2) SCC
- 12 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
746 has held that the awardal of compensation
in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is a remedy available in
public law based on strict liability for
contravention of fundamental rights as regards
which principle of sovereign immunity would
not apply and the Bombay High Court granted
interim compensation in the matter.
12.4.The High Court of Manipur in a suo moto
proceedings in the case of IN RE EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTION OF
CRUELTY TO ANIMAL ACT, 1960 AND RULES
VS. STATE [PIL NO.41/2017] vide its order
dated 25.07.2018 has held that it was the duty
of the State Government to implement the
provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Establishment and Regulation of
Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
- 13 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
Rules, 2001, the Animal Birth Control (Dogs)
Rules, 2001 as also the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case
Property Animals) Rules, 2017 as also the
orders of the Apex Court in ANIMAL WELFARE
BOARD OF INDIA VS. A.NAGARAJ & ORS.,
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547 and INDIAN
COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. reported in (1996) 5
SCC 281.
12.5.The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of
THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER VS. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL
SELF IN WP NO.30611/2004 came to a
conclusion that the right to live as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a
fundamental right which would take precedence
over the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules,
2001. Though the interest of the animals has
to be protected, there cannot be an abdication
- 14 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
of the interest of human lives and preservations
thereof and as such, dismissed the petition filed
by the petitioners therein. The petitioner
having sought for directions to preserve stray
dogs, the Court came to a conclusion that the
stray dogs could cause fatal and dangerous
injuries inasmuch as neither were they
vaccinated nor taken care of and as such pose
a great risk and danger to the human life.
12.6.This Court in MASTER JISHNU AND OTHERS
VS. BBMP AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2013
ILR KAR 4015 while considering a similar
matter issued the following directions:
“(1) The Animal Welfare Organisations and the Monitoring
Committee as contemplated under the ABC Rules,
2001 to ensure complete sterilization and
vaccination of all healthy stray dogs, particularly,
within the territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP as per
Rules 7 and 8;
(2) It is advisable to entrust the responsibility of
sterilization and vaccination to NGO'S or other
agencies in a decentralized manner. A Report of
their activities must be submitted to the BBMP on a
regular basis for the latter's scrutiny and
verification;
- 15 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
(3) Stray dogs which are incurably ill or mortally
wounded as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian
to be euthanized in terms of Rule 9 of the said ABC
Rules, 2001;
(4) Furious or dumb rabid dogs to be dealt with in terms
of the Rule 10 of the said Rules;
(5) Dogs which do not come within the scope of Rule 9
or 10 but which are a menace or cause nuisance
irrespective of whether there is evidence of such
dogs having mauled or bitten children or adults
could be exterminated in the manner specified in
Rule 9 of the ABC Rules, 2001 under the orders of
the Commissioner of the BBMP as per the
provisions of KMC Act, 1976;
(6) The BBMP must take serious note of complaints with
regard to unruly stray dogs by setting up a
complaint cell in various zonal offices of the
B.B.M.P, and act in accordance with law and also
having regard to the observations made herein
above, particularly having regard to Section 11 of
1960 Act read with Rules 9 and 10 of the ABC Rules
2001 in the matter of culling of stray dogs;
(7) Having regard to the interpretation given by us, to
the Central as well as the State Laws, Rule 7 of
ABC Rules 2001 does not require to be struck
down. But sterilization and vaccination of stray
dogs must be carried out on a regular basis and by
holding additional camps for such purpose at the
initiative of the B.B.M.P.;
(8) The BBMP to ensure that the Rules for clearance of
Municipal Solid Waste be enforced, so that garbage
found in the city of Bangalore, is not a reason for
stray dog menace;
(9) The BBMP to frame guidelines for the grant of
compensation to the victims of attacks by the stray
dogs;
(10) The owners of dogs to ensure that their pet dogs
are not a menace or cause nuisance in public
- 16 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
places. It would be mandatory for the owners of
the dogs to take out their dogs on public roads or
public places along with a leash and not let their
dogs loose on the streets, so as to avoid a
confrontation with street dogs or other pet dogs;
(11) The citizens must also bear in mind that street dogs
also have a right to live and therefore, must refrain
from attacking these dogs by stone throwing or by
beating etc. They must ensure that children do not
go near the stray dogs either to play with them or
to feed them.”
12.7.There being various petitions filed before the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the Apex Court is seized of
those matters in SLP (C) No.691/2009 and
other connected matters. Since the main
matter arose out of an incident in Kerala, a
committee was also appointed by the Apex
Court to enquire into the matter and suggest a
methodology to be followed in the case of dog
bites and prevention thereof. The committee is
headed by a retired High Court Judge of the
Hon’ble Kerala High Court and is stated to have
submitted its report. The Animal Welfare Board
is also stated to have prepared a module
dealing with such matters and the module has
- 17 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
been made available to the various
stakeholders for their comments which would
be considered by the Apex Court. Suffice it to
say that the larger issue is under consideration
by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble
Apex Court has issued various interim
directions directing the authorities to provide
sufficient number of dog pounds including
animal kennels/shelters which are to be
managed by Animal Welfare Organisations, to
provide requisite number of dog vans with
ramps for the capture and transportation of
street dogs, to provide driver and trained dog
catchers, to provide an ambulance cum clinical
van as mobile center for sterilization and
immunization; incinerators for disposal of
carcasses and periodic repair of shelters etc.
An obligation has also been imposed on the
Animal Welfare Board to see to it that all the
- 18 -
WP No. 110352 of 2019
regulations are followed by the State, Municipal
Corporations, Municipal Councils, District
Boards and local bodies as per the Act and
Rules aforementioned.
12.8.A perusal of all the aforesaid decisions leaves
no doubt in my mind that there is a statutory
obligation which has been imposed upon the
local municipal authorities in this case being
respondents No.2 and 4 to safeguard the
human beings cohabitating the particular local
area from the danger of any stray dogs and/or
any attack by such stray dogs.
12.9.The Hon’ble Apex Court has also directed the
municipal authorities to provide necessary
infrastructure and funding for discharge of the
aforesaid statutory obligations.