Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by a Resident Welfare Association (‘RWA’) against directions ordering the release of the stray dogs captured from Taksila Heights (‘the Society’) back into the Society after vaccination/sterilisation, the Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari, J., rejected the petition, holding that the directions aligned with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, (‘the Rules’).
Background
On the day of the incident, one of the stray dogs housed in the Society attacked and bit an eight-year-old child residing in the Society. The child was taken to the Hospital, and as per the medical report, the injuries suffered by the child were on account of a dog bite. Thereafter, on the request of the parents of the victim child and other residents of the Society, a Non-Governmental Organization named “Umeed for Animals Foundation” (‘NGO’) captured six stray dogs from the Society.
Aggrieved by such capturing, another resident of the Society filed a complaint alleging that parents of the victim child and other residents of the Society had beaten up and thrown the dogs out of the premises of the said Society in violation of the Rules. Further, she alleged that the CCTV cameras were turned off at the time of the said incident, and the people who were trying to capture the videos of the capture were also threatened and asked to delete the footage.
Accordingly, an FIR was lodged under Section 325 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 11(1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960. The Deputy Commissioner constituted a team (‘Committee’) of three members, i.e., Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as Chairman, Joint Commissioner-I of Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (‘MCG’), and Deputy Director of Saghan Pashu Chikitsa Vibhag, as members for investigating the complaint received against the Chief Medical Officer, MCG, and another person, regarding the capturing of the dogs from the Society.
Thereafter, the Committee Chairman issued a letter/communication (‘impugned letter/directions’) directing the stray dogs to be returned to the Society after vaccination/sterilisation.
Aggrieved, the RWA filed the present petition contending that the impugned directions were issued without any jurisdiction, and without complying with Rule 20 of the Rules and the Haryana Municipal (Registration and Proper Control of Dogs) Bye-laws, 2005 (‘the Bye-laws’).
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that Rule 11(8) of the Rules pre-supposes that all the dogs caught, shall be identified with a numbered collar immediately upon arrival at the Animal Birth Control Center, and the number shall correspond to capture records to ensure that each dog is released in the same area from where it was captured, after sterilisation and immunisation.
The Court further noted that Rule 11(19) imposes an obligation upon the local authority that all the dogs shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured, and the date, time, and place of their release shall be recorded after the completion of the sterilisation process. Similarly, Rule 16 deals with the procedure regarding the resolution of complaints of dog bites or rabid dogs.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that the Rules, especially Rule 16(6), made it clear that in case a dog is captured, either for sterilisation or vaccination/immunisation, or when it is found that the dog is not suffering from rabies, but from any other disease or is furious in nature, then it is within the domain of the local authorities to handover the dog to the Animal Welfare Organisation. The Animal Welfare Organisation shall then take necessary action to cure and release the dog after 10 days of observation.
However, the Court noted that in the instant case, the dogs were captured by the NGO in complete ignorance of the Rules. The NGO could capture the dogs only as a representative of local authorities, and that too after complying with the prescribed provisions. Unfortunately, none of the provisions were shown to have been complied with, which led to the registration of the FIR. The Court further stated that Rule 11(8) and (19) of the Rules mandated that the dog be released back to its original place from where it was captured.
Further, upon a thorough analysis of Rule 11 of the Rules, the Court stated that though the local authorities had the power to keep the street dogs in the impounding compound, it did not empower them to keep the dogs for an indefinite period. Thus, the Court held that the impugned directions were passed in consonance with the Rules and there was no violation of the Bye-laws either, since the dogs were not captured by the local authorities.
Lastly, the Court noted that the impugned letter reflected that the specific directions were issued in 2025 to the Chief Medical Officer to release the street/stray dogs captured 8 months prior. Thus, the impugned directions should have been issued much earlier.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
[Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 17188 of 2025, decided on 01-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ishaan Bhardwaj
For the respondent: Bhupender Singh, Additional A.G., Haryana
