Pet owners vs residents: Legal notice issued over Bandra Bandstand Promenade access

Animal rights activist Shiraz Ahmed claims they lack the right to manage public premises and have imposed unlawful restrictions on pets and public access.

After a tussle over access to the Bandra Bandstand promenade for pet owners and animal feeders, animal rights activist Shiraz Ahmed has issued a legal notice to the Bandra Bandstand Residents’ Trust (BBRT) and USV Private Limited, questioning their “authority to administer, manage and restrict access” to the promenade and adjoining public garden.

Activist Shiraz Ahmed has issued a legal notice to the Bandra Bandstand Residents’ Trust and USV Private Limited, questioning their “authority to administer, manage and restrict access” to the promenade and adjoining public garden. (HT PHOTO)

Ahmed, founder of the Humanity World Foundation, has alleged that the BBRT does not have the right to manage or maintain the “public premises”. And yet the trust had outsourced the operation and maintenance of the public garden to USV Pvt Ltd without the consent of the Mumbai Maritime Board (MMB), the notice claims.

Ahmed has also challenged the legal validity of an NOC granted to BBRT in 2002, stating that it did not have “perpetual validity”. He also claimed a proposed agreement to maintain the promenade and the garden drafted in 2021 was never executed.

The activist alleges that BBRT and USV Pvt Ltd allegedly collected monetary benefits and sponsorships, displaying commercial branding and exercising administrative powers over the promenade and garden. The notice has demanded that BBRT and USV remove “unlawful” boards, signage and prohibitory notices restricting activities including pets, animal feeding, cycling, eating and the use of the public space by underprivileged children. It states that BBRT must also stop the “harassment” and restrictions on members of the public.

“What had started as a fight for the rights of pet parents and poor children has now become much bigger,” said Ahmed, who alleges that BBRT had been “running a public place as if it were private property”.

Attempts to contact BBRT trustees for their response to the allegations were unsuccessful.