AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.
The relief arises from the manner in which dog breeding unit is being run by the Animal Husbandry Department of the Tamilnadu State and the maintenance of the unit. In fact it is the case of the petitioners that there is contravention of the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. The unit is stated to have been set up in the year 1980-1981 with the view to preserve the native dog breeds of the States viz., Rajapalayam, Chippiparai/Kanni, Kombai, while at present it is even breeding foreign dogs. The Animal Welfare Board/Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 34828 of 2013 has carried out an inspection and found that the functioning of the breeding unit is not in accordance with the manner in which it has to be run. In fact, the unit is not even registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India violating the rules. There are various other infirmities pointed out and these have been noticed to the Animal Husbandry Department. The recommendation in fact is for shutting down the unit, on account of cruelty and illegality and the funding used by the breeding unit is recommended to be directed towards State Animal Births Control Programmes that encourages the adoption of dogs from animal shelters or in streets.
The learned counsel for the State, more specifically Respondent No. 3, however submits that his instructions are that the Government department was desirous of continuing to run the unit for the objective for which it is set up. He submits that necessary formalities for registering the unit with the Animal Welfare Board would be carried out and the unit brought in conformity with the recommendations of the Board and the infirmities removed keeping in mind the very objective for which the unit was set up. He requests a period of three months time to do the needful.
In view of the aforesaid stand, we are inclined to grant three months period of time. Thereafter, the Animal Welfare Board will carry a fresh inspection. If on consideration of the situation, the Animal Welfare Board still recommends that there is no sufficient improvement and the unit should be closed down, then we are of the view that the recommendation should be followed and the unit be shut down. However, if the unit serves its original objective and it is brought in conformity on inspection by the Animal Welfare Board, then the unit can continue subject to its continued performance monitored by the Animal Welfare Board. It is open for respondents 1 and 2 to seek the assistance of any Professor from Tamil Nadu Veterinary University. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation.