Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Return Of Vaccinated Stray Dogs To Housing Society | Animal Birth Control Rules Mandate Release At Capture Site | Dismisses RWA Plea Citing Aggression And Safety Concerns
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held that the directive to return sterilized and vaccinated stray dogs to their original location was lawful and consistent with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the instructions issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Badshahpur, Gurugram, to the Chief Medical Officer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, to shift back six captured stray dogs to the residential society from which they were removed. The Court further clarified that local authorities are empowered under the statutory framework to return stray dogs to their original habitat post-treatment and that the impugned communication did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect or procedural irregularity.
The matter originated from a communication dated 19.05.2025 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Badshahpur, Gurugram, in his capacity as Chairman of a Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram. This communication directed the Chief Medical Officer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, to shift back stray dogs to Taksila Heights, Sector 37-C, Gurugram, following their vaccination and sterilization. The Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of the said society filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the said communication.
The petitioner Association challenged the directive on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction and failed to comply with Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, as well as the Haryana Municipal (Registration and Proper Control of Dogs) Bye-laws, 2005. The RWA claimed that the impugned action was taken without convening a seven-member committee as mandated under Rule 20(2) and without any prior consultation with the residents.
The dispute was rooted in an incident on 22.09.2024, when a stray dog bit an eight-year-old child residing in the society. The child was taken to Fortis Hospital, Gurugram, where injuries were confirmed as dog bite wounds. On 20.10.2024, the child's mother lodged a police complaint. Meanwhile, based on residents' requests, the NGO "Umeed for Animals Foundation" captured six stray dogs from the premises. The NGO purportedly maintains a dedicated facility for rehabilitation of street dogs, although no record was produced to verify this claim.
Subsequently, a complaint dated 24.09.2024 was submitted by one Ms. Garima Tripathi, alleging that residents had forcibly removed the dogs and turned off CCTV cameras to avoid documentation. People recording the incident were allegedly threatened and told to delete footage.
This led to registration of FIR No. 679 dated 09.11.2024 under Section 325 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 11(1)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Investigation was initiated, and on 24.12.2024, a notice was served to the Society President to join proceedings. Subsequently, a three-member Committee was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, comprising the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Joint Commissioner-I, and the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry.
On 19.05.2025, the Deputy Director, Saghan Pashudhan Vikas Priyojna, recommended relocating the dogs back to the society. In response, the Chairman of the Committee issued the impugned directions. The RWA contended that the dogs were aggressive and Rules of 2023 did not apply. The RWA also argued that release back to the residential area was not permitted under Rule 11 of the 2005 Bye-laws.
The Court noted that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, issued under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, were notified on 10.03.2023 and were applicable to the case. Rule 8 imposed a duty on local authorities to ensure sterilization and immunization of stray dogs. Rule 11 prescribed that captured dogs, post-treatment, "shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured."
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari recorded: "All the dogs caught shall be identified with a numbered collar... to ensure that each dog is released, in the same area from where it was captured, after sterilisation and immunisation." The Court further noted under Rule 11(19) that the release location and time "shall be recorded after their complete recovery... and the representative of the local authority or of the animal welfare organisation shall accompany the team at the time of release."
On the issue of aggressive behaviour, the Court examined Rule 16(6), which provides: "If the dog is found not to have rabies but some other disease or is furious in nature then it would be handed over to the Animal Welfare Organisation who shall take the necessary action to cure and release the dog after ten days of observation." It was observed that no record indicated compliance with this process by the NGO.
The Court found that the NGO had acted unilaterally without the local authority's mandate. Justice Tiwari recorded: "This organization can capture the dogs only as a representative of local authorities, and that too after complying with the abovesaid prescribed provisions. But, unfortunately, none of the provisions were shown to have been complied with."
Regarding the RWA’s reliance on Rule 20(2) of the Rules of 2023, the Court clarified that the rule pertained to resolving disputes about feeding points for community animals. Justice Tiwari stated: "There is no conflict between the RWA and other residents regarding fixing of any point to feed the community animals. Therefore, this argument pales into insignificance."
Concerning the 2005 Bye-laws, the Court held: "Though the local authorities have the power to keep the street dogs in the impounding compound, it does not empower them to keep the dogs for an indefinite period." Further, "Rule 11 of the Bye-laws of 2005 would have no bearing... as the dogs were not captured by the local authorities."
The Court dismissed the writ petition. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari held: "The impugned directions were very well passed in consonance with the Rules of 2023, and there is no violation of any Bye-laws of 2005."
The Court further stated: "The specific directions were issued to the Chief Medical Officer to release the captured street/stray dogs only after they being vaccinated/sterilized."
It was also noted: "The dogs were captured way back on dated 24.09.2024, and they were ordered to be released, vide impugned communication dated 19.05.2025. However... they ought to have been released after 10 days of their seizure."
Finally, the Court clarified the remedy available to the petitioner: "In the event of any complaint regarding the menace of street/stray dogs, the petitioner-RWA, would be at liberty to approach the local authorities, or any other authority concerned, in terms of the provisions of Rules of 2023, for redressal of its grievance."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional A.G., Haryana
Case Title: Resident Welfare Association, Taksila Heights Sector 37-C, Gurugram vs. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:078876
Case Number: CWP-17188-2025
Bench: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
