On Monday, the Bombay High Court directed a residential society in Mumbai to address grievances from its members regarding security guards who use sticks to intimidate, menace, or harm animals.
The bench comprising of Justices GS Kulkarni and RN Laddha instructed the society to address such complaints promptly, as using sticks on animals could be regarded as a form of cruelty towards them.
“Insofar as the Security Guards causing any scare/threat to the animals by using sticks is concerned, we direct the society to entertain complaints from the petitioner and other members of the society in this regard, so that appropriate action can be taken against such Security Guards who are indulging in such actions,” the bench said.
“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 behaviour of the animals, apart from inflicting cruelty to the animals,” the High Court further added.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Paromita Puthran, a resident of RNA Royale Park CHSL, with regard to a disagreement about the designated areas within the society for feeding stray dogs.
Puthran asked for specific feeding areas to be earmarked for stray dogs in the housing society, alleging that the society was refusing to do so and was also preventing her from feeding the dogs.
In compliance with the orders of the High Court, Abodh Aras, as the Chief Executive Officer of “The Welfare of Stray Dogs” organization, surveyed the society and produced a report identifying appropriate areas for feeding stray dogs.
After examining the report, both the society and Puthran arrived at a mutual understanding to reassess the areas in question and designate suitable feeding spots, taking into account the suggestions provided in the report.
In addition, Puthran volunteered to provide drinking water to the dogs, which the Court urged the society to accept.
The parties need to amicably resolve the dispute as 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 High Court said.
Puthran alleged that the society had hired bouncers to deter dogs from accessing the premises.
However, the society gave an assurance to the court that these were simply security personnel, and not bouncers as alleged by Puthran.
Afterwards, the bench dismissed the petition, while allowing the petitioner the liberty to pursue suitable legal measures against the security personnel, in case of any breach of the law.
