The main grievance of the petitioner is non-compliance with rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 i.e. The Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001 that states taking up regular sterilization and immunization programmes of stray dogs, in order to curtail the growing population of stray dogs.
Society residents obligated to provide drinking water to stray dogs due to onset of summer heat.
The Court directed the respondents to identify a place to feed the stray dogs in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Courts, Supreme Court and AWBI.
The High Court issued a contempt notice against an Advocate and a civic official, who acted on her request, after observing that a lawyer’s letter asking for a designated area within the Bombay High Court premises in Nagpur to feed dogs was for “publicity”.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram: While deciding the instant matter wherein the complainant applied for medical assistance due to
Allahabad High Court issues notice to Nagar Nigam on compensation to family after stray dog menace leaves one child dead and other seriously injured
Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., in a very significant ruling issued guidelines with regard to the feeding of stray dogs and
Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Anant S. Dave, ACJ and Biren Vaishnav, J. directed the petitioners to make arrangements
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of V.K. Bist and Alok Singh, JJ. has ordered in a Public Interest Litigation to shift
Supreme Court: Taking note of certain photographs which carry the caption “Kerala Politicians beat street dogs to death, hang them on a