Dismissed

Airports Authority of India v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Gujarat HC28 Nov 2018LPA/979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Letters Patent Appeal challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's prayer to shoot stray dogs, the Gujarat High Court highlighted that courts cannot permit shooting animals. The Court directed the parties to discuss the issue and dismissed the appeal because it lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application were dismissed. The Court did not permit shooting dogs and directed parties to discuss relocation.

Airports Authority of India Vs Ahmedabad Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/LPA/979/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 979 of 2018

¶4

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22645 of 2017

¶6

With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018

¶7

================================================================ AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶8

================================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

================================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶13

Date : 28/11/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)

¶16

In this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the order dated 26.12.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.22645/2017 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi) wherein prayers made by the writ petitioner is to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents No. 1 to 5 to take necessary action and send dog van on daily basis as well as any and every time that a complaint is registered with the respondents by the petitioner and alternatively, to permit the petitioner to manage the menace of the stray dogs in the vicinity of the operational area of the airport in any such manner as the petitioner may

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/LPA/979/2018 ORDER

¶19

deem appropriate and further to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Court directing the respondents to frame appropriate rules and regulations for the purpose of relocating stray dogs breeding in the vicinity of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, Ahmedabad, to the place at-least 40 to 50 kms away from the vicinity of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, Ahmedabad.

¶20

Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of learned advocates appearing for the parties found that it was open for the petitioner authority to take appropriate measures for preventing stray dogs from entering into the operational area of the said airport and further, based on decision of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2576 of 2000, submission made to permit the petitioner to shoot the dogs, came to be rejected.

¶21

Before this Court, various contentions are raised based on failure on part of the learned Single Judge to consider certain statutory provisions of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and particularly, section 66(42) of the said Act which mandates the Corporation to perform certain functions to ensure public safety, health and convenience. It is reiterated that menace of stray dogs in the operational area of airport may hamper operation of the flights smoothly and even it may endanger safety of the public at large and, therefore, the prayers may be granted by quashing and setting aside the judgment impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal. Before us also decision of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2576 of 2000 is pressed into service.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well the

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/LPA/979/2018 ORDER

¶25

respondent Corporation.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, we have referred to the prayers made in the writ petition in earlier part of this order which is self-explanatory. The alternative prayer of the writ petitioner to permit to manage menace of the stray dogs in the vicinity of the operational area of the airport, for which no direction of the Court is necessary.

¶27

So far as displacement, removal or relocation of stray dogs in the operational area of airport is concerned, the petitioner authority can pursue the respondent Corporation and by entering into discussion and deliberation, such issue can be resolved.

¶28

Under no circumstances, this Court can permit the appellant/petitioner authority to shoot dogs and the decision of Bombay High Court relied on by the petitioner may have persuasive value.

¶29

In absence of merits, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application also stands dismissed.

¶30

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ)

¶31

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶32

RAGHUNATH R NAIR

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Airports Authority of India v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Airports Authority of India v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bai Chhagni D/O Valabha Vaniya (Died During the Pendancy of Appeal) Vs State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Revenue Department

Abhaysang Khatuji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat through the Special Secretary (Appeals)

Deep Industries Limited Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited through Neelratan Chaudary Deputy General Manager (P)

Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs Bhagwanbhai Khojabhai Parmar

Nareshkumar Mahendrabhai Parmar Vs Municipal Commissioner

Chandrakant Udaychand Mehta Vs State of Gujarat