Society Residents Obligated To Provide Adequate Water To Animals, Particularly Considering Onset Of Summer Season: Bombay High Court

In a dispute between a housing society and its members over feeding stray dogs and feeding points, the Bombay High Court has said that it would be an obligation of the residents of the society to always make provision for adequate water to be made available to the animals more particularly considering the onset of the summer season.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and R N Laddha, while disposing of the case on Monday, accepted the contention raised by the petitioner, an animal lover, that she would like to provide drinking water to the dogs. “…the parties need to amicably resolve the dispute as it should not be that drinking water is not provided to the dogs,” the court observed.

While leaving most of the issues to the parties to amicably resolve between themselves, with some intervention of a stray dog welfare NGO, the court did issue a direction to the society to entertain complaint against its own security guards hitting the animals with a stick and take appropriate action against them.

“It should not be that drinking water is not provided to the dogs. It would be an obligation of the residents of the society to always make provision for adequate water to be made available to the animals more particularly considering the onset of the summer season,” the order stated.

Terming it as something that would amount to inflicting cruelty on those animals, the bench also noted that would aggravate the behavior of the animals.

“This would be necessary as we are of the clear opinion that such coercive methods would certainly amount to an act of cruelty to the animals. This apart, such methods being used by the Security Guards or any other persons would aggravate the behavior of the animals, apart from inflicting cruelty to the animals,” the bench said.

On the society’s contention seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate measures in respect of vaccination, and sterilization of the dogs and also to consider any other grievances, the court asked the Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation to hear the parties and take an appropriate decision on all the issues after considering the views of the animal welfare NGO.

During a hearing on the case last month the bench had observed that to hate the stray dogs and/or treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach, from persons of civil society.

“If the Society continues to take any coercive measures as noted by us above and by physical force, persons like the petitioner are prevented from taking care of these animals, and/or from pursuing such activity which is wholly permissible in law, such actions on their part would not only be contrary to the provisions of law, but also, amount to commission of an offence,” the court had then observed.

The court was hearing two petitions – one filed by RNA Royale Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited and another by animal lover and a resident of the same society Paromita Puthran, who was represented by Advocate Nishad Nevagi. Puthran claimed to be caring for 18 dogs.

The court also sought compassion and cooperation from the housing society citing an example of one of the High Court judges who is known to feed a dog on Marine Drive, making people believe the dog is the judge's pet.

“Have you taken a round of the High Court? Have you seen the number of cats? ...they are sometimes sitting on the dais too. You take them anywhere they come back. They have territorial affinity,” the court had asked during the last hearing, adding, “Ultimately you have to take care of animals. That's what the rules and act says.”

The court had also observed that The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides for feeding of community animals and designation of feeding spots.

“...it would be an obligation of all the members of the Society to follow the mandate of law and to prevent themselves from causing any cruelty and harassment to the animals, as also to those, who intend to take care for these animals. We, accordingly, expect that a sense of belonging and responsibility on such issue needs to prevail between the members of the society so as to cordially resolve these issues, and no confrontation in this regard ought to happen,” the court had noted in the previous order.

Case Title: Paromita Puthran Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.[Writ Petition No.702 Of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order