Lawyer Who Wanted Designated Place In Bombay HC Premises To Feed Stray Dogs To Tender Unconditional Apology After Contempt Notice
Days after the Bombay High Court Nagpur bench issued a contempt notice against a lawyer and a civic official regarding a designated place to feed dogs in the High Court premises, the lawyer agreed to tender an unconditional apology. Counsel for Advocate Ankita Shah submitted that she would file an affidavit of unconditional apology by the next date while Deputy Commissioner - Dr....
Days after the Bombay High Court Nagpur bench issued a contempt notice against a lawyer and a civic official regarding a designated place to feed dogs in the High Court premises, the lawyer agreed to tender an unconditional apology.
Counsel for Advocate Ankita Shah submitted that she would file an affidavit of unconditional apology by the next date while Deputy Commissioner - Dr. Gajendra Pandhari Mahalle tendered his apology during the hearing.
"His affidavit of apology is not happily worded but, we are willing to grant leniency," the division bench of Justices SB Shukra and MW Chandwani said in the order regarding Mahalle's affidavit.
During the last hearing the court had issued contempt notices to Shah for writing to Mahalle for designating a particular place within the High Court premises to feed dogs. The contempt notice was issued to Mahalle for acting on her "publicity" request and further writing to the High Court registrar seeking the same.
The court passed the order in 2006 ongoing PIL filed by activist Vijay Talewar in which it passed a slew of directions against feeding and caring for stray dogs.
Destruction of Dogs
Advocate Firdaus Mirza for the petitioner submitted that based on the court's earlier order to initiate action to "destroy dogs" under Section 44 of the Mumbai Police Act only a circular to police stations was issued by the Police Commissioner instead of a public notice as is the requirement under the section.
However, the court observed that unless the Police Commissioner received some specific information of nuisance created by dogs in particular locality he wouldn't act as per the section. And this information would come from location police stations, therefore there was nothing wrong if issuing only the circular, the court said.
According to Section 44 of the Mumbai Police Act, the District Superintendent may issue a public notice by which every stray in a particular place would be "muzzled" to prevent it from biting, while not obstructing its breathing or drinking.
"And the Police may, so long as such notice remains in force, destroy, or take possession of and detain, any dog found loose without muzzle in any street or place beyond the premises of the owner."
The court also asked the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to clarify if strays roaming without collars have been sterilised and if so, whether their ears have been clip pet and/or tattooed while maintaining a register of such sterilised dogs.
The bench will now hear the matter on January 4.
Case Title: Vijay s/o Shankarrao Talewar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
Click Here To Read/Download Order