HC restrains Kandivali society from hiring bouncers to drive away strays

The bench said, “In our opinion, considering the object and intention of the statutory Rules read with all the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, 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.”

MUMBAI: Observing that stray animals are living beings and need to be taken care of by the society, the Bombay high court on Tuesday restrained the managing committee of RNA Royal Park, a residential complex in Kandivali West, from hiring henchmen to drive away strays and discourage members from feeding strays in the complex.

Mumbai, India - October 29, 2022: Residents of Castle Rock Complex feed stray dogs outside the building premises, at Powai, in Mumbai, India, on Saturday, October 29, 2022. (Photo by Pratik Chorge/Hindustan Times) (Pratik Chorge/HT PHOTO)

The HC directed the civic authority to coordinate with the managing committee to identify a dedicated spot in the complex where the strays could be fed and taken care of by the concerned feeders.

The division bench of justice Girish Kulkarni and justice Rajesh Laddha was hearing the petition filed by Paromita Puthran, an animal lover, whose advocates Nishad Nevgi, Anjali Mallekar and Samaa Shah informed the court that the woman was living in the complex, in Kandivli East, which comprised of three buildings and had a lot of open space. However, as there was no dedicated spot earmarked for feeding of stray dogs and cats in the society, Puthran was forced to provide food to nearly 18 stray dogs at the gate of the complex.

The bench was also informed that as the location was not secluded, there was a possibility of stray animals being run over or injured while being fed and hence, the petitioner was seeking directions for identifying a secluded spot in the complex where she could feed the strays.

The bench was further informed that even while the petitioner was trying to get a spot dedicated for feeding, the managing committee in its November 2022 meeting decided to hire bouncers to scare off the strays as well as the feeders.

The advocates stated that the decision of the committee was violative of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which provides that it shall be the responsibility of the ‘Resident Welfare Association’ or ‘Apartment Owner Association’ of the area to make necessary arrangement for feeding of the community animals residing in the premises or the area involving the person residing in that area or premises who feed those animals or intend to feed those animals, and provide care to street animals as a compassionate gesture

The housing complex refuted the allegations by saying that in the November decision, they had also decided to identify a spot for feeding strays, but the same was not done as yet.

The bench, however, said, “In our opinion, considering the object and intention of the statutory Rules read with all the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, 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.”

With regards to the threat to children and senior citizens from strays the bench said, “It is appropriate that proper measures in that regard in consultation with experts, animal lovers, NGOs and the municipal officers can be discussed and implemented.”

While directing the complex and civic authority to identify a spot in the complex for feeding the strays, the bench said, “We also intend to sound a word of caution to the members of the managing committee and the other members of the society that to hate the stray dogs and/or treat them with cruelty can never be an acceptable approach from persons of a civil society, as an act of cruelty to such animals would be against the Constitutional ethos and the statutory provisions.”