Petitioning the High Court against Dog-Shooting

By 1998, PFA was well-poised to be recognised as an effective animal welfare organisation. Even though the problem of getting a suitable site had not yet been sorted out, there was now a sound financial base, credibility, a number of achievements which members could point to with pride, and, most important of all, widespread public support. The need now was for a catalysing action that would enable the organisation to organise its work more effectively as well as spread over a larger area. This catalyst was provided by the very issue which had provided the initial impetus for setting up PFA, viz. dog-shooting.

International Animal Rescue (IAR), another Animal Welfare Organisation in Goa, had approached PFA for legal help in tackling the problem of dog shooting in the villages of Calangute and Candolim where they had been sterilising strays for nearly a year. After explaining the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme to the two panchayats, as well as convincing them that shooting strays was as offence under the law, PFA got an assurance from the panchayats that dog shooting would not take place in these villages. Both panchayats also agreed to contact IAR/PFA whenever they received distress calls from citizens regarding stray dogs. All went well for a while.

But in September '98, IAR approached PFA in considerable agitation, with the news that dog shooting had started again. Upon inspection of the dead animals it was found that many of them had been sterilised and immunised. (These could easily be identified from the V-clip on the ear, the tattooed number on the inside left ear and the dog collar.) Naturally, both IAR and PFA were livid with rage that all their efforts of the past several months were ruined by this unforgivable action. When contacted, both panchayats denied any involvement. Further investigation revealed that it was the Government Tourism Department which had engaged in this action, probably out of some misguided notion of cleansing the beach of strays before the on-coming tourist season.

Realising that the time for firm action had come, PFA together with IAR filed a Writ Petition in the High Court in September 1998, seeking prohibition of the practice of shooting of stray dogs in Goa. Besides the State Government, the Panchayats of Candolim and Calangute and the Panjim Municipal Council were also impleaded as respondents, since dog-shooting had been taking place in Panjim for a long time and both animal welfare organisations felt that it was about time that Goa's capital city showed the way to the rest of the state in terms of sound animal welfare practice.

To their great joy, the Panjim Municipal Corporation (PMC) responded positively and wholeheartedly agreed with the petitioners that the heinous practice must be stopped. The war was won without a shot being fired. The High Court immediately granted a stay order on the shooting of healthy strays and fixed the matter for hearing after four weeks, by which time the authorities were expected to come up with a programme of action for controlling the stray dog population in the state. PFA put forward the ABC programme and volunteered to commence activities immediately in Panjim. To their credit the authorities responded with commendable speed and generosity. The PMC took under its wing the very NGOs which had taken them to court and after several cordial meetings, the PMC presented to the Court a scheme for controlling the stray dog population of the city to be undertaken by the animal welfare organisations with infrastructural support and financial assistance from the municipality and the State Government.

The High Court gave a further boost to the PIL when it expanded the scope of the petition to enquire into the facilities that existed in the State for the care of animals and also the assistance that the State would provide to animal rights activists who were willing to work for the cause.

While disposing of the petition, the Court issued directions to the State Government to set up a State Animal Welfare Board and to take steps to organise a programme for sterilisation of strays in Goa, in cooperation with animal welfare organisations. Consequently, the State Animal Welfare Board was set up and PFA trustee, Ms. Norma Alvares, was made a member of the Board. The State Board took upon itself the task of coordinating with various animal welfare organisations (AWOs) to set up animal shelters in different parts of Goa. The Board has been an important mechanism for coordination between various animal welfare groups and the government. This coordinated action avoids duplication and also brings problems and requirements to the notice of concerned government agencies.

PFA takes this opportunity to express its heartfelt grateful thanks to Advocate Mahesh Sonak who fought the dog shooting case on behalf of PFA at no cost whatsoever to the organisation.

The writ petition and the Court order are given below:

Petition

In the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, Goa Bench, at Panaji.

Writ Petition No. 373 of 1998

People for Animals and anr. )..Petitioner.
v/s
Panaji Municipal Council and ors. )..Respondents.

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 51A (g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960;
AND
IN THE MATTER OF CRUEL AND BARBARIC PRACTICE OF SHOOTING OF STRAY DOGS IN THE STATE OF GOA.

1. People for Animals through Ms. Norma Alvares, Trustee, Parra, Bardez, Goa

2.International Animal Rescue, through its Secretary, Ms. Sonia Hillidge, registered Society with office next to Mahindra Jeep Yard, Saligao Chogm Road, Saligao, Bardez, Goa
... Petitioners.

Versus

1. Panaji Municipal Council through its Chief Executive Officer, Panaji, Goa.

2. The Director, Department of Tourism, Patto, Panaji, Goa.

3. Panchayat of Calangute through its Chairman, Calangute, Goa.


Panchayat of Candolim through its Chairman, Candolim, Goa.


State of Goa through its Chief Secretary having office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa.

Animal Welfare Board of India through its Chairman, Chennai
... Respondents.

(The above are registered addresses of respondents)

TO

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND COMPANION JUDGES.
THE APPLICANTS HEREIN MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

(1) The Petitioner No.1 is an animals rights organisation registered as a Trust with headquarters in Mumbai and with a unit based in Goa. The Trust which is headed by Maneka Gandhi was set up to look after the welfare of animals and to undertake campaigns to educate the general public concerning the necessity of treating all animals with compassion. The petitioner No.2 is an animal welfare organisation with headquarters in England and with a society registered in Goa with Indian citizens as members.

(2) The Respondent No.1 is the Municipality of the city of Panaji, which has commenced the barbaric, bloody and unacceptable practice of shooting dogs openly on the streets. Respondent No. 2 is the head of the Department of Tourism of the Goa Government which has recently hired dog- shooters and recommenced the killing of stray dogs in the villages of Calangute and Candolim. The Respondent No.3 is the statutory local authority for Calangute and Baga. Respondent No.4 is the statutory local authority for Candolim. Respondent No.5 is the respondent state. Respondent No.6 is the authority set up under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and which has issued guidelines for the sound management of dog populations and which has come down firmly against uncivilised methods of eliminating strays.

(3) The Petitioners are filing the instant Writ Petition for the purpose of seeking an order from this Hon'ble Court to restrain the Respondents from shooting stray dogs with guns in the jurisdiction of Panaji city and Calangute and Candolim villages. In the latter two villages, petitioners have instituted a special dog population management programme based on sterilisation and vaccination of dogs and are expending vast sums of money for the purpose. The programme is based on detailed guidelines issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India. The shooting of dogs is undoing the steady achievements of the animal welfare programme. In addition, shooting of dogs is a violent and cruel practice and is in specific violation of Sec.11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The practice should be banned. Hence this petition.

(4) The petitioners Nos. 1&2 have been jointly working for over a year and looking after the welfare of stray dogs of Candolim, Calangute and Baga. They have attempted to provide a rational programme for the management of the stray dog population in these villages based on scientific program involving animal sterilisation and birth control recommended not only by such bodies as the World Society for the Protection of Animals but also by the Animal Welfare Board of India which is the statutory body set up under Protection of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, to look after the welfare of animals in the country.

(5) The Petitioners are approaching this Honorable Court because after initiating a fairly successful programme in sterilising and looking after stray dogs - including strays that are sick and wounded - the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have hired a dog shooter and proceeded on a dog shooting spree in Panaji, Calangute, Candolim and Baga areas respectively.

(6) Petitioners have been informed by their members that they have witnessed the shooting of dogs last week in Panaji. In one instance, member of the PFA phoned to confirm that a dog shooter shot two perfectly healthy dogs in her presence. The dogs were then dumped into a PMC van. Upon demand, the dog-shooter refused to show his authorisation papers. He only stated his name was Jose. Petitioners have come to know that the Panaji Municipal Council has now received approximately 1,000 bullets from the police for use in the mass dog killing planned in the city.

(7) Petitioners are annexing to this petition as Exhibit A, letter dated 25.9.98 addressed by the Primary Health Officer to the Panchayat of Calangute, directing the Calangute Panchayat to shoot the dogs due to the increase in rabies. The letter does not provide the number of dog bites or actual rabies cases. Neither does it state whether the dog bites are from strays or from domestic pets.

(8) Petitioners state that stray dogs and stray cows have became a problem in many villages and towns in Goa and no person or organisation was concerned about these animals and their health and welfare till the formation of the petitioner No.1 three years ago. Later, the Petitioner No.2 was also registered as a society under the Societies Act. Prior to the formation and work of these organisations, so-called professional dog shooters were routinely utilised by the various municipalities and village panchayats to eliminate stray dogs. Under the present system, a dog shooter is contracted by the panchayat or municipality and he is paid a rate for every dog that is shot in a locality by the authorities. For his payment, he must produce the cut tail of the dead animal. Despite the killing of dogs by such revolting means, the population of dogs has continued to grow for the following undisputed reasons:

1. Human beings by their habits keep throwing unconsumed food in the general environment and the stray dogs are basically scavengers who survive on such food. In fact, they clean up the streets of waste food, destroy vermin and thereby do a service to the society of human beings.

2. Despite several laws in force, municipalities and village panchayats in the state of Goa do not lift garbage from garbage bins on time. The stray dogs naturally find a ready source of food and their population is bound to multiply as per the routine law of nature which allows expansion of population whenever there is expansion of food.

3. There is no control maintained over domestic pets within the State of Goa. Several owners maintain pets for purely selfish reasons. They do not take adequate precaution to ensure that the females are sterilised with the result that when litters are produced these are cruelly taken from the bitches and deserted or abandoned by the owners in secluded places or along roads and forced to fend for themselves. Petitioners very often have to carry away entire litters kept by owners in fields or in forest areas and then looked after them. None of the Municipalities or panchayats are registering any of the dogs and no control is maintained on the situation with the result that large number of population of stray dogs can be directly sourced to the domestic pets maintained by people.

(9) Petitioners state that these facts are well established in the literature and refer to the study, Dog Management in India, carried out under the auspices of the World Society for the Protection of Animals, hereto annexed to this petition as Exhibit B. The said report clearly states that since pet dogs are much more successful at breeding than street dogs, the abandonment of unwanted pups is a significant source of new recruits to the street population. The report also states that though the strongest fear is rabies, a study taken at a Delhi hospital revealed that 80% of dog bites were from pet dogs and around 20% from street dogs. Less than 1% of cases were from confirmed rabid animals. It also states that experience shows that in the 1980s the number of cases of rabies increased dramatically while at the same time the number of dog killings went up.

(10) Petitioners also refer to the report of the Sub-Committee set up by the Animal Welfare Board of India, and which is hereto annexed to the petition as Exhibit C. The said report clearly states that disposal of animals by any means other than humane putting down by injection would be clearly illegal. It also records remarkable other facts relating to the method of controlling population of strays by killing and records clearly the following reasons why they programmes have not succeeded:

1. The vacuum of dogs destroyed being filled by animals from other territories;
2. The very high breeding rate;
3. The discarding of unwanted house pets, and puppies, and their subsequent proliferation on the street;
4. The antipathy and non-cooperation of the public to such a system.

(11) Petitioners state that they have had discussions with the various Municipalities and Panchayats in the past and as a result for more than a year, dog-shooting had been stopped by all parties in the state of Goa. However, due to persistent demand from some citizens who seem to be paranoid about all dogs, notices began appearing in the papers that dog-shooting would commence. PFA trustee from Margao, Vinod Gosalia, immediately wrote a strong letter to the Municipal Council of Margao, attempting to persuade it not to kill dogs since it was illegal but to go in for more humane means and also offered assistance. Copy of the said letter is hereto annexed to this petition as Exhibit D. Now petitioners find that there is a gradual attempt to start the practice for no compelling reasons in other areas despite the fact that the practice is clearly illegal.

(12) Petitioners state that under the various Panchayat and Municipal Acts, it is the statutory responsibility of these bodies to control the population of the stray animals and this exercise must be carried out along scientific lines, with due compassion and not with violence or by inflicting pain. The statutes do not sanction the wanton slaying of stray dogs by shooting. We cannot claim to have progressed if we continue to indulge in brutal and bloody methods of killings healthy stay dogs in open streets, often in the presence of children.

(13) The two Petitioners, relying on the experience of animal welfare groups elsewhere in the country, have agreed to spend their time and money on a specific joint animal birth control (ABC) programme in the areas of Candolim and Calangute with a view to gradually expanding this programme in the other areas of Goa. For this purpose, the petitioner No.1 has loaned the petitioner No.2 its mobile animal surgery unit. Accordingly, programme was initiated in these villages and the panchayats of Calangute and Candolim were informed of the programme and their support was sought for effective implementation of the programme. The programme closely follows the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.6 to such programmes. The said guidelines are hereto annexed as Exhibit E.

(14) Petitioners state that the Calangute Panchayat (Resp.No.3) immediately agreed to give an undertaking that it would not hire a dog shooter in the village of Calangute and would also make available the money set aside for the purpose to the petitioners as its contribution to the success of the ABC programme in the village. No animals were accordingly killed in these areas for a period of one year. Till today the Panchayat has stuck to this decision and has refused to shoot dogs.

(15) As a result of the programme more than 1000 bitches and 400 female cats were operated in the area. Females were surgically sterilised using the mid-line method. Each sterilised animal was kept at the IAR centre at Saligao for full seven days until the operational wound was completely healed. Each sterilised animal was then ear- tipped, tattooed and a belt fitted before it was returned to the environment from where it was taken. Prior to the release each animal was also given the anti-rabies vaccine. Hereto annexed to this petition as Exhibit F is affidavit filed by Sonia Hillidge, Secretary of the IAR (Petitioner No.2) giving full details of the ABC programme carried out by them in the villages of Candolim and Calangute and elsewhere.

(16) Petitioners state that the programme was proceeding very well till two Sundays ago when they were shocked to hear that a dog shooter had been retained and contracted by the Tourism Department (Resp.No.2) to kill the stray dogs in the Calangute-Baga areas. Petitioners made enquiry with the Panchayat of Calangute and were told they were asked by the Tourism Department to provide their van for the purpose of removing the killed animals. However, the Panchayat was unable to supply the van. Despite this, the Department went ahead with the dog-shooting programme. Petitioners state that the Respondent No.2 has no business to deal with stray dogs or to have them shot since it is the responsibility of the Village Panchayat to deal with the problem. The problem of dealing with the stray dog population in these areas was being carried out on scientific lines by the petitioners with the co-operation and support of the panchayat. It is not known why the Tourism Department suddenly woke up to commence the dirty business of dog- shooting. Petitioners submit that since the management of strays is a matter of the Panchayat, the Tourism Department ought to have consulted the Panchayat prior to having the dogs shot.

(17) Petitioners submit that after they heard of the shooting, they visited the area and dug up the pits in which the killed dogs were buried. Petitioners state that the dogs killed were beneficiaries of the ABC programme in so far as the ears were tipped in characteristic fashion. They had also been given anti-rabies injections as per record maintained by the ARC. Therefore it was a senseless and wanton act to have killed such dogs because they were healthy, sterilised and without disease.

(18) Petitioners state that for each dog sterilised they are spending from their own funds an amount of Rs.450. The breakdown is given in the affidavit filed by Sonia Hillidge above. This amount is collected by donations received from the public and animal welfare lovers both in England and Goa. It does not originate from government or any other official source. Petitioners therefore submit that it was highly callous, criminal and irresponsible on the part of the Tourism Department to commence programme of shooting these dogs after they have been sterilised and released in the general environment as per the rational and scientific policy endorsed even by the World Health Organisation and the Animal Welfare Board. The government agencies are not taking any action for the control of the stray dog population and yet obstructing and defeating the constitutionally endorsed, individually financed volunteer efforts of the NGOs and animal welfare agencies.

(19) Petitioners submit that the shooting of stray dogs cannot be a solution to the problem of increasing population of stray dogs. All the authorities are unanimous that killing of dogs does not bring down the population. In fact, as per the figures set out below from data that is available, it is clear that the population of stray dogs has kept on increasing despite all manner of violent programmes.

(20) Petitioners submit that in any event, shooting of dogs is a cruel practice and is therefore in complete violation of section 11 of the PCA Act, 1960. The dog-shooter visits areas at random, locates the dogs and commences shooting. Often, the dog is not shot properly as it guesses what is occurring and attempts to run away. The scene is witnessed invariably by people, particularly impressionable children who are generally very fond of animals. The blood from the shooting remains all over the area. Often the dogs are not dead, only seriously wounded and die a painful death. Petitioners submit that the practice is prima facie illegal and is therefore liable to be banned.

(21) Petitioners state that the killing of dogs by shooting with bullets has now been given up in all cities including Mumbai. After several years of the ABC programme, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation decided for some reason to resume the shooting of what it claimed were "sick dogs". However, the Municipal Corporation has been restrained from carrying out any such killing dogs by an order of injunction by the Bombay High Court dated 17.8.98 in Writ Petition No.1596/1998. Copy of the Order is hereby annexed with this petition as Exhibit G. It is important to clarify that the Court has restrained the killing of the sick animals even though the Corporation uses injections to put down the dogs. The MMC does not kill dogs by shooting which is a barbaric practice and shunned by Municipalities everywhere else in the country.

(22) Petitioners are therefore approaching the Honorable Court to stop the shooting of dogs by bullets on the following grounds, among others:

I. The shooting of dogs with bullets is a specific violation of the Section 11 of the PCA Act and is specifically forbidden under the said Act. The shooting of dogs is a very violent, cruel and barbaric practice. It is not only cruel but it causes the animal gross pain and lingering death. There are other more humane ways of putting dogs down which the petitioners are competent to carry out. The shooting of dogs also has great impact on the other dogs in the neighbourhood who witness the shooting.

II. The PCA Act, 1960 specifically prohibits any cruel practice perpetrated on dumb animals. The killing of dogs by shooting is a cruel practice and is not acceptable in a civilised society.

III. Shooting of dogs is carried out in a highly incompetent manner. The so-called professional dog shooters are very often unable to kill the dogs immediately and for this reason the dogs are badly injured and die a lingering and painful death. After being shot, they are dumped or even buried alive by the dog shooter so that the dog-shooter can cut off the tails and claim compensation from the person or authority with whom he is in contract;

IV. It is a generally admitted fact by all the authorities that shooting of dogs is not the solution to control population of stray animals. There are now several judgements on this aspect which have been dealt with in other states.

V. Petitioners are not against destruction of seriously ill dogs. However, there are alternative methods of taking care of such animals which do not involve violence, brutality, cruelty and unnecessary pain. Petitioners are ready to exercise the same whenever called upon to do so.

(23) Petitioners state that they are entitled to an order from this Court restraining the Respondents from killing any stray dogs in the city of Panaji and the villages of Calangute and Candolim by the practice of dog-shooting. Petitioners state that the Bombay High Court, the Karnataka High Court and the Andhra High Court have issued interim directions in several matters related to animal protection, specifically dog-killing. Petitioners crave leave to rely upon such orders.

(24) Petitioners have no other alternate and efficacious legal remedy available and if the reliefs prayed for herein are granted, they are complete in themselves.

(25) Petitioners crave leave to amend this petition if and when the need arises.

(26) Petitioners state that it has not filed in this matter any other petition either in this Hon'ble Court or in the Supreme Court of India.

(27) Petitioners have their offices in Goa. Respondents have their offices in Goa. This Hon'ble Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition.

(28) The Petitioner is therefore approaching this Hon'ble court for the following reliefs:

i) for a writ or order in the nature of a declaration that the practice of shooting of dogs is a violation of the PCA Act, 1960 and is therefore banned;

ii) For a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.5 to take appropriate steps to ban the practice of dog-shooting in the state of Goa.

iii) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, an order restraining the Respondents 1-4 from shooting or causing any dogs to be shot in the city of Panaji and the villages of Calangute and Candolim and in any other village or town where such schemes are initiated;

iv) Interim relief in terms of prayer (iii) above;

v) Ad-Interim relief in terms of prayer (iii) above;

vi) for costs of the petition;

vii) any other relief this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.

Panaji October 1998 Advocate for the petitioners

Judgement

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji.

Writ Petition No. 373 of 1998

People for Animals and another
v/s
Panaji Municipal Council and others

Petitioners represented by Advocate Shri M.S. Sonak.
Respondent no.1 represented by Advocate Shri S.S. Kantak.
Respondents no.2 and 5 represented by Government Advocate Shri H.R. Bharne.
Respondent no.3 represented by Advocate Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni with Advocate Shri P.A. Kamat.
Respondent no.4 represented by Advocate Smt. A.A. Agni.

CORAM: R.K. Batta and R.M.S. Khandeparkar, JJ.
Date: 20th July, 1999
ORAL ORDER: (Per Batta, J.)

1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought directions to respondent no.5 to take appropriate steps to ban the practice of dog shooting in the State of Goa and that the shooting of dogs is in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. When the matter came up at the admission stage, it was noticed that the State Government had not implemented the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Welfare Board as provided in the Act has not been constituted. In view of the same by interim order, the respondents were directed not to continue with the shooting of healthy dogs and the respondents should lay down a policy and guidelines stating which dogs require to be eliminated. Subsequently, the Panaji Municipality had placed a tentative scheme and the scheme was placed before the Government of Goa. The State Government was accordingly directed to inform what action is being taken on this scheme as well as for setting up of a State level Animal Welfare Board and setting up of infirmaries under the said Act. The scheme proposed by Panaji Municipality as well as the setting up of infirmaries was also placed before the Advisory Board for Animal Welfare.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocates for the respondents.

3. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services has placed before us the minutes of the second meeting of State Advisory Board for Animal Welfare held on 28.6.1999 (Annexure I) with affidavit dated 19.7.1999 of the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, scheme to control population of stray dogs in the Panaji Municipal Council area (Annexure II to the said affidavit) as well as the decision taken by Government of Goa (Annexure III to the said affidavit). The Government of Goa has approved the implementation of the scheme to control the population of stray dogs in Panaji Municipal area and has decided to waive the service charge of Rs.100 per operation of sterilization of stray dog. The Government has approved to set up one sub-centre at Goseva Ashram, Usgaon to provide treatment to Ashram animals and the animals kept at the infirmary without any service charges. Besides that, the Government has also approved to provide grant-in-aid of Rs.20,000 during the current year to Dwarkapuri Goseva Ashram, at Tiska, Usgaon. The financial assistance in the next financial year will be considered after assessing the expenditure incurred and the number of animals kept in the infirmary during the current year.

4. Learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne stated that this scheme will be implemented in all parts of Goa.

5. In view of the affidavit dated 19.7.1999 of the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services enclosing minutes of the Second meeting of the Goa State Advisory Board for Animal Welfare dated 28.6.99 (Annexure I), Scheme to control population of stray dogs (Annexure II) and the decision taken by the Government of Goa (Annexure III), no further directions are required to be made in the petition and the petition stands disposed off in aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.