The Bombay High Court has directed a residential society not to prevent the staff or domestic workers from entering their premises to feed stray dogs.

The Court stated that it cannot overlook that the fundamental rights or the basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens are not breached. The Bench observed that the residential society (Petitioner) could not breach the fundamental rights guaranteed to the residents of the building merely because they were feeding the dogs.

A Division Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna directed, “If there is any grievance of petitioner no.1 on any issue of feeding the dogs or any palce of feeding, it is available to petitioner no.1 to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before the designated authority, which can be defended by the added respondent in finding out the suitable mechanism for feeding of the dogs, that is the object in which the rules in question as also the substative law on protection of animal rights would be required to be considered and implemented by the authorities.

Advocate Yash Agarwal represented the Petitioners, while Advocate D.P. Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, sought to prevent feeding of stray dogs within its premises, due to inconvenience and opposition from some residents. The added Respondent argued that her fundamental rights were being violated as the society allegedly obstructed her efforts to feed community animals at designated spots by denying entry to her staff who was helping her feed the strays.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court referred to the decision of a Co-Ordinate Bench in Paromita Purthan vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai where the Court noted that every species, including animals, has a right to life, dignity, and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution. The PCA Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, further establish the rights of animals to food, water, and care.

It is thus clear from the aforesaid observations of the Court that it would not be appropriate for petitioner no.1 to take a position contrary to the rules and cause any hindrance to the person like added respondent who is intending to take care of these animals,” the Division Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court directed, “In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct petitioner no.1 not to prevent any of the staff members/maid servants visiting the apartment of the added respondent-Leela Varma to discharge their regular duties.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application.

Cause Title: Seawoods Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 11652 OF 2023)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Yash Agarwal

Respondents: Advocates D.P. Singh, R. P. Ojha, R. K. Dubey and Tejesh Dande; Addl. GP Kedar Dighe; AGP M.M. Pable;

Click here to read/download the Order