Allowed

Canine Welfare Organisation v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/4460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order by the Delhi High Court quashed the Ministry of Fisheries' circular banning 24 dog breeds. The Court held that the circular was issued without hearing stakeholders, violating an undertaking. It directed the government to issue a public notice inviting written objections before framing a final notification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned circular dated 12th March 2024 is set aside. Respondents directed to issue a public notice inviting written objections within two weeks and decide them before issuing the final notificati

Canine Welfare Organisation Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~38-40.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4374/2024 & CM APPL. 17925/2024

¶4

SIKANDER SINGH THAKUR & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Palli, Mr. Kshitij Pal and Mr. Arinjay Singh, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Prtha Srikumar, Ms. Anusha Murti, Mr. Atharv Gupta, Advs. for Intervenor/ PETA. + W.P.(C) 4460/2024 & CM APPL. 18302/2024, CM APPL. 18303/2024, CM APPL. 21316/2024 CANINE WELFARE ORGANISATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Varma, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Neha Sharma, GP, Ms. Priya Singh and Ms. Karnika Bahuguna, Advs. with Mr. Chandravanshi, AWBI. Ms. Manali Singhal, Mr. Mustafa Alam, Ms. Yashima Sharma, Ms. Heeba Ansari, Ms. Anchal Kapoor, Mr. Deepak, Advs. in C.M. 22572/2024

¶7

- W.P.(C) 4653/2024 & CM APPL. 19057/2024 SACHIN KUMAR JAISWAL & ANR. ..... Petitioner

¶8

Through:

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2024 at 13:57:05

¶11

versus

¶12

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondent

¶13

Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC, Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Hussain Taqvi, GP and Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Adv.

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶15

CM APPL. 22346/2024 in W.P.(C) 4374/2024 CM APPL. 22572/2024 in W.P.(C) 4460/2024

¶16

Keeping in view the averments in the applications, the same are allowed subject to just exceptions. The applicants are impleaded as respondents in the respective petitions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶17

W.P.(C) 4374/2024 & CM APPL. 17925/2024 W.P.(C) 4460/2024 & CM APPL. 18302/2024, CM APPL. 18303/2024, CM APPL. 21316/2024 W.P.(C) 4653/2024 & CM APPL. 19057/2024

¶18

Present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the circular dated 12^th March, 2024, issued by the respondent No.1 (Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying) prohibiting import, breeding and selling of twenty-four dog breeds as mentioned therein.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the impugned circular is perverse and illegal and it has been passed in violation of the undertaking

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2024 at 13:57:05

¶21

given to this Court (as recorded in the order dated 06^th December, 2023, passed in W.P.(C) No. 15673/2023) that due opportunity to all the stakeholders would be given before passing any order prohibiting import, breeding and selling of dogs dangerous for human life.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioners state that the impugned circular has been quashed by the Karnataka High Court vide judgment and order dated 10^th April, 2024 in Writ Petition No. 8409 of 2024 (GM - RES). 5. Some of the private respondents state that certain directions given by the Karnataka High Court are based on Rules which have been repealed. 6. Learned counsel for the Union of India admits that other than Government bodies, no private body was heard before the impugned circular was issued. He states that he has no objection if the impugned circular is set aside with a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh circular/notification after giving an opportunity to all the stakeholders to raise their objections. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement by learned counsel for Union of India, the impugned circular dated 12^th March 2024 is set aside. 8. However, as it is not possible to give an oral hearing to each and every dog owner, this Court directs that the respondents shall issue a public notice in a national newspaper as well as on the respondents’ official website inviting written objections to the proposed/ draft notification/ amendment to the rules within two weeks. 9. The objections filed in response to the advertisement/ publication on the website shall be examined and decided by the respondents before issuing the final notification. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions stand disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has neither commented upon nor dealt with the

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2024 at 13:57:05

¶25

judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶26

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶28

APRIL 16, 2024

¶29

N.Khanna

¶30

Canine Welfare Organisation v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canine Welfare Organisation v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Harish Chander Sharma

Harvinder Singh Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govrnment of India and

Ajit Sarin Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Priya Sarin and Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Qaisar Sultana (Sr. Citizen) and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Br College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sanskriti College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Pt. Deendayal Dangrolia Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Dheeraj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Alok Rattan Vs Union of India Th Secratry & Ors.

Chhavi Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

V.K. Sawhney Vs the State

Sachin Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh Sunny Sachdeva Vs Acp North Rti Cell and Anr.