Comments
Hi
I am staying in Aditya Garden City, Near Pune-Bangalore Highway, Warje, Pune.
I have a complain about the street dogs in our society. In recent days the number of dogs have gone high and can see 10 -15 dogs roaming around. The trouble by them is they start barking in the night and I being working in shift I come home at night and try to sleep thats when these dogs starts barking and sometimes continue for whole night.
Apart from this while coming home in the night they chase bikes and barks, that is very fearful and might cause an accident if we loose balance. Also it is threat to us and small children as couple of them are dangerous and attacks on us.
In night time there are bin bags kept outside these dogs tear those bags and spread garbage all over the apartment.
We cannot control them as they run away when we chase them and come back again.
We need help on this to take them away or control them. Can somebody help us here.
Awaiting reply
Thanks & Regards
Nitin Thakur
I am staying in Aditya Garden City, Near Pune-Bangalore Highway, Warje, Pune.
I have a complain about the street dogs in our society. In recent days the number of dogs have gone high and can see 10 -15 dogs roaming around. The trouble by them is they start barking in the night and I being working in shift I come home at night and try to sleep thats when these dogs starts barking and sometimes continue for whole night.
Apart from this while coming home in the night they chase bikes and barks, that is very fearful and might cause an accident if we loose balance. Also it is threat to us and small children as couple of them are dangerous and attacks on us.
In night time there are bin bags kept outside these dogs tear those bags and spread garbage all over the apartment.
We cannot control them as they run away when we chase them and come back again.
We need help on this to take them away or control them. Can somebody help us here.
Awaiting reply
Thanks & Regards
Nitin Thakur
I am a resident of New Venkateswara Colony, Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad. Of late the number of stray dogs in our colony has increased numerously. They are posing a great threat to the colony residents especially children. They also started attacking elders during the night time. They are posing a great threat as they start chasing us during night when we pass by. Few of the dogs are badly infected and are a real menace to life. Added to this they create a lot of nuisance and loud noise during the night times which made our nights almost impossible to have a sleep. Inspite of repeated complaints this problem still continues as few people here tame groups of stray dogs inside their houses (H.No 10-5-675/8/4). These dogs enter into our houses during night times by climbing the compound walls and attack if any one step out mistakenly during that time. These dogs run away during day times and gather in large groups at night time in front of this house. I request you to consider this on high priority and save our lives from this serious threat. Request you to send the Van during night times only as the dogs disperse in the day time and are difficult to trace out at one place during the day time. I thank the authorities in advance for the preventive actions and for resolving this problem.
Hi there
Below is a very good example draft for writing a petition regarding 'public nuisance', however, please take the advice of a lawyer before preparing your own petition as the codes may be different in Delhi.
The original petition was against a person who was carrying his pets in a building elevator causing distress to other residents (see this link http://www.commonfloor.com/stories/dogs-can-use-lift-for-free-1748). Even though he obtained permission to carry them in the elevator, that permission can be challenged if it can be shown that his actions are causing a public nuisance. People might love dogs but their actions should not inconvenience others.
Please note that the "Section 133 Cr.P.C." is used for complaints regarding "public nuisance". In your own case the barking of the dogs is a public nuisance and has to be addressed as such. It will also help if you can find other people to petition along with you. Please read the petition below carefully.
Also understand that this reply is NOT legal advice. Please consult a lawyer/solicitor before you proceed to submit a petition yourself).
[protected][protected][protected][protected][protected][protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 23.12.2009
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN
Crl. R.C.No.1195 of 2009
and M.P.No.1 of 2009
D.Vikram .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Dr.Jayavarthavavelu
2. S.Pathy
3. R.Kumaravel
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Revision preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the final order, dated 27.11.2009 passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.
For petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for R1
Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Samuthira Vijayan for R2 & R3
Mr.N.Kumanan, G.A. (Crl.side) for R4
O R D E R
Challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, dated 27.11.2009, made in Ref.No.2966/A2 under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein.
2. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore has passed the impugned order and the operative portion of the order reads as follows :
“a) That the order passed by me on 03.09.2009 under Section 133 Cr.P.C., is made absolute without any modification.
b) That the respondent shall not carry on the activity of keeping or holding any dogs in said premises situated at Door No.28, Circuit House Road, Coimbatore and he shall forthwith remove all the dogs in his capacity and possession, failing which it shall be enforced according to law.”
3. On the complaint given by the respondents 1 to 3 herein before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that the petitioner herein had been causing public nuisance by keeping large number of dogs of different varieties in the rear side of his house at Door No.28, Circuit House Road, Coimbatore abutting the wall of Door No.26 of Thiru.D.Jayavarthavavelu and abutting the wall of the residential house of Thiru.R.Kumaravel, residing at Door No.703, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore and also close to the house of the second respondent, the action was taken by the fourth respondent herein. As per the complaint given against the petitioner herein, he was keeping more than 30 dogs of different varieties in his house, violating the provisions of Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. It was further stated that constantly, the dogs were making peculiar noises of barking and howling during night hours and also in the early morning hours, which affects the respondents 1 to 3, their family members and others and also create an unhealthy atmosphere besides causing annoyance, as the dogs emit foul smell, causing inconvenience to the residents and guests in the area.
4. In the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has stated that he went through the affidavit, counter affidavit and also considered the evidence adduced by the power agent of the complainants and also the reports of the Inspector of Police, B4 Police Station, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central) and the report of the Joint Director of Health Services. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the dogs are to be removed considering the public interest and the public health. The order further reads that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation had also reported that no NOC was granted for keeping the dogs in the residential area and some dogs are found ferocious in nature and the dogs are kept by the petitioner herein only for commercial purposes and hence, the nuisance caused by the petitioner is construed as a public nuisance, as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore has not followed the mandatory provisions while passing orders under Section 133 Cr.P.C., for the removal of pet animals. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked against the petitioner, as the provision is available only to remove the hazardous animals. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the complainants, the respondents 1 to 3 herein had adduced any evidence to substantiate the averments in the complaint given by them and the evidence adduced by the power agent before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not sustainable and the same has to be rejected. The third contention is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has failed to note the animosity of the respondents 1 to 3 with the petitioner in connection with the kennel club competition and that the respondents 1 to 3 are also rearing pet animals in their houses. According to the learned counsel, keeping the dogs by the petitioner cannot be construed as a public nuisance to invoke Section 133 Cr.P.C, since they are only pet animals.
6. Per contra, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner was keeping huge number of dogs, 30 in number as stated in the impugned order in a residential area. The barking and the howling of the dogs and emitting of foul smell causing hazardous condition to the residents of the area, which is a public nuisance. The learned Senior counsel has also drew the attention of this Court to Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, which reads as follows :
“352. Licences for places in which animals are kept (1) The owner or occupier of any stable, veterinary infirmary, stand, shed, yard or other place in which animals or quadrupeds are kept or taken in for purposes of profit shall apply to the commissioner for a licence not less than forty-five and not more than ninety days before the opening of such place or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed, as the case may be.
(2) The commissioner may, by an order and under such restrictions and regulations as he thinks fit, grant or refuse to grant such licence.
(3) No person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence, use any place or allow any place to be used for any such purpose.”
7. According to the learned Senior Counsel, without obtaining any licence from the authorities, the petitioner is keeping huge number of dogs for commercial purposes and some of the dogs are ferocious and also drew the attention of this Court to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and argued that right to live peacefully without noise pollution and hazardous condition is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the act of the petitioner keeping large number of dogs of different varieties at the residential area is detrimental to the fundamental right of the respondents 1 to 3 and the other residents. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there are aged heart patients in the residential area and the howling and barking of dogs, especially during night hours would endanger the life of such aged and ailing persons.
8. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is keeping only pet dogs and not for any commercial purposes and therefore, Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act has no relevance in this case. The learned counsel also requested the Court to grant interim stay against the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore.
9. As per Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, the owner or occupier of any stable, veterinary infirmary, stand, shed, yard or other place in which animals or quadrupeds are kept or taken in for the purposes of profit shall apply to the commissioner for a licence not less than 45 and not more than 90 days before the opening of such place or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed, as the case may be. As per sub-section 3, no person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence, use any place or allow any place to be used for any such purpose. Therefore, it is clear that as per the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, animals or quadrupeds cannot be kept without obtaining license from the authorities.
10. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 352 of the said Act is applicable if the animals are kept for the purpose of earning profit and in the instant case, the dogs are being kept only as pet animals and therefore, the aforesaid Section is not applicable.
11. Per contra, Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 drew the attention of this Court to the typed set filed by the respondents, wherein at page number 12, by way of an affidavit, the respondents as complainant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate have stated that the petitioner herein had published an advertisement, that he had been keeping dogs for sale and the downloaded advertisement in the internet was also produced as a document along with the affidavit, which is available at page number 14 of the typed set. Under the head, “Champion line Great dane pups for sale Coimbatore champion great dane pups for sale” has been published, wherein the price of the dog is stated at Rs.17, 000/- and further, in the advertisement, 3 male and one female dogs have been stated.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement was not made by the petitioner in the internet, however, it is seen that the aforesaid downloaded advertisement copy was filed with an affidavit by the respondents 1 to 3 herein before the 4th respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore, that was not disputed by the petitioner herein. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner herein to dispute the same in the revision.
13. Though the petitioner is admittedly keeping number of dogs, in the petition mentioned premises, the petitioner has not specifically stated as to how many dogs are being kept by him at the residential area, for the reasons best known to him. When the impugned order specifically says that the petitioner was keeping more than 30 dogs, it is the duty of the revision petitioner to furnish the details. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during his arguments submitted that the petitioner was keeping only 6 to 7 dogs and not 30 dogs, as stated in the impugned order.
14. In order to enlighten the legal aspect, learned counsel appearing for both sides have cited the following decisions in support of their contention :
1. Bhaba Kanta vs. Ramachandra, 1987 Crl.L.J 1155
2. Manuel Philip vs. State, AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 1
3. Donnington Tea Factory vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Sub-Collector, Connoor, 1998 Crl.L.J 3585
4. Prem Charan vs. State o[censored].P, 1976 Crl.L.J 1451
5. M/s. Shiraz Cinema vs. Srinagar Municipal Corporation, Crimes (HC[protected]
6. Ramachandra Malojirao Bhonsle vs. Rasikhbai Govardhanbhai Raiyani, 2001 Crl.L.J 866
7. Jagdamba Prasad Tewari & another vs. State o[censored].P. & others, 1991 Crl.L.J 1883
8. Bali vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Crl.L.J 909
9. Madan Mohan Chowlia vs. Ashutosh Sasmal and others, 1975 Crl.L.J 959
10. Jagdamba Prasad Tewari & another vs. State o[censored].P. & others, Crimes (HC[protected].
11. Vasant Manga Mahajan and others vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu and another, 1979 Crl.L.J 526
12. Ramasamy, M vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, etc., 1988 Mad LW Crl 62
13. Thaneswar Bora vs. Kumud Sarmah, 1987 Crl.L.J 1293
14. The Manager, Kodanad Estate vs. The S.D.M and the Asst. Collector, Coonoor, 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 383
15. Preman, P. vs. M.P.Andy, 1997 (1) CTC 305
16. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Limited, 2005 (3) MLJ 109 (SC)
15. In Bhaba Kanta vs. Ramachandra reported in 1987 Crl.L.J 1155, the Gauhati High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 133, 145 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be continued side by side when there is enough time to go to Civil Court. The decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since keeping the dogs in the residential area resulting in barking and howling is an unbearable annoyance, a public nuisance to the aged and ailing people in a residential zone. In such circumstances, the party need not go to the Civil Court, seeking redressal.
16. In Manuel Philip vs. State, reported in AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 1, it has been held that before action can be taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C, the obstruction or nuisance must be proved to exist on some way, river or channel which may lawfully be used by the public or on some public place. If the obstruction or nuisance is on some private property, action under Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be taken. Here in the instant case, the noise pollution, by way of barking and howling cannot be construed as a private nuisance, as it affects public at large in a residential area.
17. In M/s. Shiraz Cinema vs. Srinagar Municipal Corporation, reported in Crimes (HC[protected], the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that Section 133 Cr.P.C., providces for the remove of public nuisance. The purpose and object of Section 133 Cr.P.C is not intended to settle private disputes between two members of the public but is intended to protect the public as a whole against the inconvenience of public nuisance. No doubt that the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be used for settlement of disputes between private parties. In the instant case, it cannot be construed that there is any attempt to settle any private dispute.
18. This Court in the decision, Preman, P. vs. M.P.Andy, reported in 1997 (1) CTC 305 has held that the Executive Magistrate directing cutting and removal of branches that protrude over respondents house is a case where private rights are involved.
19. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Limited, reported in 2005 (3) MLJ 109 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of attorney holder cannot depose evidence for any act done by the principal, without any personal knowledge. In the instant case, the power of attorney has deposed the evidence from his personal knowledge, he has also stated the same in his evidence and he was also cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner herein. No doubt, no power of attorney holder can depose anything on the personal knowledge of his principal, however, in the instant case, the evidence deposed by the power of attorney is only from his knowledge, regarding the keeping of dogs by the petitioner. Further, keeping of dogs by the petitioner in the residential area is not disputed by the petitioner.
20. The Court can take judicial notice that barking and howling of dogs in a residential area would certainly cause noise pollution and further, keeping those animals in the residential area, without getting license under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act is also violation. On the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the decisions cited on the side of the petitioner would not make the action taken by the 4th respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate illegal to remove the public nuisance under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Keeping animals detrimental to the interest of the other residents cannot be a right of any person.
21. The Court can take judicial notice that keeping even 6 or 7 dogs in a residential area will cause public nuisance on account of barking and howling of the dogs, similarly, emitting foul smell by the dogs cannot be ruled out, which would also cause public nuisance.
22. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 relying on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Krishna Gopal vs. State of M.P., (1986 Crl. L.J 396) submitted that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can be invoked under Section 133 (1) Cr.P.C., on receiving the report of the Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence if any, as he thinks fit. It was held that on information received, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is empowered to take action in this behalf for either removal or regularising a public nuisance. The action that was initiated on the basis of a Police Report and the complaint received, could be the basis for taking action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. It has been held that merely because only one complainant has come forward to complain about the nuisance, the nuisance cannot be construed that there was no public nuisance, as contemplated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there was complaints by three persons and they complained before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in order to remove the public nuisance and further, as per the impugned order, it is made clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has considered the reports of the Inspector of Police, B4 Police Station, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central) and the report of the Joint Director of Health Services and that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation has also reported that no NOC was issued for rearing dogs at the residence of the petitioner.
23. It is not in dispute that public nuisance may be an annoyance, by way o[censored]nbearable noise or emitting foul smell. The barking and howling of dogs at the residential area is certainly be construed as a public nuisance, since it is an annoyance to public at the residential area. Keeping number of dogs in a residential area would also emit foul smell, injurious to the public health. It cannot be said by the petitioner that there was no howling or barking by the dogs or no emitting of foul smell, since more number of dogs were kept nearby the residence of the respondents 1 to 3. In a civilized society, every one has a right to live peacefully without noise pollution and health hazardous atmosphere, which has been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
24. Even the conduct of any trade or occupation or keeping of any goods or merchandise, injurious to health or physical comfort of the community, could be construed only as a public nuisance. The noise pollution or air pollution cannot be ruled out as an exception. As held by the Kerala High Court, in Madhavi vs. Thilakan, reported in 1989 Crl. L.J 499, with reference to Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India and Section 133 Cr.P.C, it cannot be disputed that right to live includes right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and right to repose good health. Running workshop in certain circumstances can cause air pollution and noise pollution, which could be regulated or prohibited by the authority in invoking the provisions of law. The noise and fuels emanating from the workship will cause health hazardous. Noise pollution and emitting foul smell by keeping dogs in a residential area is no way a lesser hazardous condition than a factory creating noise pollution. Barking and howling of dogs and emitting foul smell in a residential area is undoubtedly a public nuisance.
25. The power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is vested with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate, in order to protect the people from the tyranny of the public nuisance, by way of removing the nuisance.
26. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has not obtained any license from the authorities, as contemplated under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, for keeping dogs. The petitioner is keeping number of dogs not as pet dogs, but for commercial purposes. The power agent of respondents 1 to 3 was examined and he has specifically stated that he was conversant with the facts of the case and he was also cross-examined by the petitioner herein and therefore, there is no error in considering the evidence of the power agent of the complainants, when it is supported by other material evidence available on record. It has been made clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was empowered under Section 133 Cr.P.C., for removal of nuisance and to protect the people from public nuisance. The dogs, being kept by the petitioner were causing nuisance by way of barking and howling in the residential area of the respondents 1 to 3 and hence, the action taken by the 4th respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be construed as an illegal act.
27. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, nuisance is an inconvenience which materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, but it is not capable of precise definition. Section 133 attracts only public nuisance, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, reported in (1995) 4 (Supp) SCC 54. If the inconvenience or annoyance affects public at large, that has to be construed only as public nuisance. In the instant case, it has been established that barking and howling of the dogs have caused inconvenience and annoyance to the respondents 1 to 3 as well as other people residing in the locality and therefore, it is only a public nuisance. Similarly, emitting foul smell is also a public nuisance, causing inconvenience to all the people residing in the locality. As a matter of right, no one is entitled to keep dogs or other animals in a residential area, so as to create public nuisance. Considering the barking and howling of dogs, in addition to emitting foul smell, the concerned authority, empowered under Section 133 Cr.P.C., can take action to remove the nuisance.
28. The object and purpose behind Section 133 of the Code is essentially to prevent public nuisance and which involves a sense o[censored]rgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse immediately irreparable damage would be done to the public, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex court in State of M.P. vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1642.
29. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi, reported in AIR 1981 SC 746 that right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter in a nuisance and hazardous free atmosphere.
30. In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in AIR 1986 SC 180, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the procedure prescribed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act under Section 314 of the Act for removal of encroachments from pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or an unjust act.
31. In Vincent vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 990, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a welfare state, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. In the instant case, it is clear that the respondents 1 to 3 and others are residing in a residential area, where the petitioner is keeping number of dogs, violating Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. Barking and howling of dogs in a residential area will certainly spoil the peaceful and congenial atmosphere of the public in the residential area.
32. It is the duty of the authorities and municipal administration to remove the nuisance, in order to regulate the same, in the interest of the public. Obtaining license has been prescribed under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. Even if license is obtained by a person, the affected persons can file a complaint to take action under Section 133 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent noise pollution or other hazardous condition.
33. It is well settled that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate is vested with the power to take action, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., to remove any public nuisance. In the instant case, it has been clearly established that the petitioner is keeping large number of dogs, without obtaining license for commercial purposes and also caused noise pollution and hazardous atmosphere in the residential area of the respondents 1 to 3 and therefore, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order to be interfered with by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
34. In the result, confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
tsvn
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Below is a very good example draft for writing a petition regarding 'public nuisance', however, please take the advice of a lawyer before preparing your own petition as the codes may be different in Delhi.
The original petition was against a person who was carrying his pets in a building elevator causing distress to other residents (see this link http://www.commonfloor.com/stories/dogs-can-use-lift-for-free-1748). Even though he obtained permission to carry them in the elevator, that permission can be challenged if it can be shown that his actions are causing a public nuisance. People might love dogs but their actions should not inconvenience others.
Please note that the "Section 133 Cr.P.C." is used for complaints regarding "public nuisance". In your own case the barking of the dogs is a public nuisance and has to be addressed as such. It will also help if you can find other people to petition along with you. Please read the petition below carefully.
Also understand that this reply is NOT legal advice. Please consult a lawyer/solicitor before you proceed to submit a petition yourself).
[protected][protected][protected][protected][protected][protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 23.12.2009
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN
Crl. R.C.No.1195 of 2009
and M.P.No.1 of 2009
D.Vikram .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Dr.Jayavarthavavelu
2. S.Pathy
3. R.Kumaravel
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Revision preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the final order, dated 27.11.2009 passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.
For petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for R1
Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Samuthira Vijayan for R2 & R3
Mr.N.Kumanan, G.A. (Crl.side) for R4
O R D E R
Challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, dated 27.11.2009, made in Ref.No.2966/A2 under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein.
2. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore has passed the impugned order and the operative portion of the order reads as follows :
“a) That the order passed by me on 03.09.2009 under Section 133 Cr.P.C., is made absolute without any modification.
b) That the respondent shall not carry on the activity of keeping or holding any dogs in said premises situated at Door No.28, Circuit House Road, Coimbatore and he shall forthwith remove all the dogs in his capacity and possession, failing which it shall be enforced according to law.”
3. On the complaint given by the respondents 1 to 3 herein before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that the petitioner herein had been causing public nuisance by keeping large number of dogs of different varieties in the rear side of his house at Door No.28, Circuit House Road, Coimbatore abutting the wall of Door No.26 of Thiru.D.Jayavarthavavelu and abutting the wall of the residential house of Thiru.R.Kumaravel, residing at Door No.703, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore and also close to the house of the second respondent, the action was taken by the fourth respondent herein. As per the complaint given against the petitioner herein, he was keeping more than 30 dogs of different varieties in his house, violating the provisions of Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. It was further stated that constantly, the dogs were making peculiar noises of barking and howling during night hours and also in the early morning hours, which affects the respondents 1 to 3, their family members and others and also create an unhealthy atmosphere besides causing annoyance, as the dogs emit foul smell, causing inconvenience to the residents and guests in the area.
4. In the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has stated that he went through the affidavit, counter affidavit and also considered the evidence adduced by the power agent of the complainants and also the reports of the Inspector of Police, B4 Police Station, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central) and the report of the Joint Director of Health Services. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the dogs are to be removed considering the public interest and the public health. The order further reads that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation had also reported that no NOC was granted for keeping the dogs in the residential area and some dogs are found ferocious in nature and the dogs are kept by the petitioner herein only for commercial purposes and hence, the nuisance caused by the petitioner is construed as a public nuisance, as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore has not followed the mandatory provisions while passing orders under Section 133 Cr.P.C., for the removal of pet animals. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked against the petitioner, as the provision is available only to remove the hazardous animals. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the complainants, the respondents 1 to 3 herein had adduced any evidence to substantiate the averments in the complaint given by them and the evidence adduced by the power agent before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not sustainable and the same has to be rejected. The third contention is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has failed to note the animosity of the respondents 1 to 3 with the petitioner in connection with the kennel club competition and that the respondents 1 to 3 are also rearing pet animals in their houses. According to the learned counsel, keeping the dogs by the petitioner cannot be construed as a public nuisance to invoke Section 133 Cr.P.C, since they are only pet animals.
6. Per contra, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner was keeping huge number of dogs, 30 in number as stated in the impugned order in a residential area. The barking and the howling of the dogs and emitting of foul smell causing hazardous condition to the residents of the area, which is a public nuisance. The learned Senior counsel has also drew the attention of this Court to Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, which reads as follows :
“352. Licences for places in which animals are kept (1) The owner or occupier of any stable, veterinary infirmary, stand, shed, yard or other place in which animals or quadrupeds are kept or taken in for purposes of profit shall apply to the commissioner for a licence not less than forty-five and not more than ninety days before the opening of such place or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed, as the case may be.
(2) The commissioner may, by an order and under such restrictions and regulations as he thinks fit, grant or refuse to grant such licence.
(3) No person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence, use any place or allow any place to be used for any such purpose.”
7. According to the learned Senior Counsel, without obtaining any licence from the authorities, the petitioner is keeping huge number of dogs for commercial purposes and some of the dogs are ferocious and also drew the attention of this Court to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and argued that right to live peacefully without noise pollution and hazardous condition is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the act of the petitioner keeping large number of dogs of different varieties at the residential area is detrimental to the fundamental right of the respondents 1 to 3 and the other residents. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there are aged heart patients in the residential area and the howling and barking of dogs, especially during night hours would endanger the life of such aged and ailing persons.
8. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is keeping only pet dogs and not for any commercial purposes and therefore, Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act has no relevance in this case. The learned counsel also requested the Court to grant interim stay against the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore.
9. As per Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, the owner or occupier of any stable, veterinary infirmary, stand, shed, yard or other place in which animals or quadrupeds are kept or taken in for the purposes of profit shall apply to the commissioner for a licence not less than 45 and not more than 90 days before the opening of such place or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed, as the case may be. As per sub-section 3, no person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence, use any place or allow any place to be used for any such purpose. Therefore, it is clear that as per the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, animals or quadrupeds cannot be kept without obtaining license from the authorities.
10. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 352 of the said Act is applicable if the animals are kept for the purpose of earning profit and in the instant case, the dogs are being kept only as pet animals and therefore, the aforesaid Section is not applicable.
11. Per contra, Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 drew the attention of this Court to the typed set filed by the respondents, wherein at page number 12, by way of an affidavit, the respondents as complainant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate have stated that the petitioner herein had published an advertisement, that he had been keeping dogs for sale and the downloaded advertisement in the internet was also produced as a document along with the affidavit, which is available at page number 14 of the typed set. Under the head, “Champion line Great dane pups for sale Coimbatore champion great dane pups for sale” has been published, wherein the price of the dog is stated at Rs.17, 000/- and further, in the advertisement, 3 male and one female dogs have been stated.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement was not made by the petitioner in the internet, however, it is seen that the aforesaid downloaded advertisement copy was filed with an affidavit by the respondents 1 to 3 herein before the 4th respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore, that was not disputed by the petitioner herein. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner herein to dispute the same in the revision.
13. Though the petitioner is admittedly keeping number of dogs, in the petition mentioned premises, the petitioner has not specifically stated as to how many dogs are being kept by him at the residential area, for the reasons best known to him. When the impugned order specifically says that the petitioner was keeping more than 30 dogs, it is the duty of the revision petitioner to furnish the details. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during his arguments submitted that the petitioner was keeping only 6 to 7 dogs and not 30 dogs, as stated in the impugned order.
14. In order to enlighten the legal aspect, learned counsel appearing for both sides have cited the following decisions in support of their contention :
1. Bhaba Kanta vs. Ramachandra, 1987 Crl.L.J 1155
2. Manuel Philip vs. State, AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 1
3. Donnington Tea Factory vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Sub-Collector, Connoor, 1998 Crl.L.J 3585
4. Prem Charan vs. State o[censored].P, 1976 Crl.L.J 1451
5. M/s. Shiraz Cinema vs. Srinagar Municipal Corporation, Crimes (HC[protected]
6. Ramachandra Malojirao Bhonsle vs. Rasikhbai Govardhanbhai Raiyani, 2001 Crl.L.J 866
7. Jagdamba Prasad Tewari & another vs. State o[censored].P. & others, 1991 Crl.L.J 1883
8. Bali vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Crl.L.J 909
9. Madan Mohan Chowlia vs. Ashutosh Sasmal and others, 1975 Crl.L.J 959
10. Jagdamba Prasad Tewari & another vs. State o[censored].P. & others, Crimes (HC[protected].
11. Vasant Manga Mahajan and others vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu and another, 1979 Crl.L.J 526
12. Ramasamy, M vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, etc., 1988 Mad LW Crl 62
13. Thaneswar Bora vs. Kumud Sarmah, 1987 Crl.L.J 1293
14. The Manager, Kodanad Estate vs. The S.D.M and the Asst. Collector, Coonoor, 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 383
15. Preman, P. vs. M.P.Andy, 1997 (1) CTC 305
16. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Limited, 2005 (3) MLJ 109 (SC)
15. In Bhaba Kanta vs. Ramachandra reported in 1987 Crl.L.J 1155, the Gauhati High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 133, 145 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be allowed to be continued side by side when there is enough time to go to Civil Court. The decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since keeping the dogs in the residential area resulting in barking and howling is an unbearable annoyance, a public nuisance to the aged and ailing people in a residential zone. In such circumstances, the party need not go to the Civil Court, seeking redressal.
16. In Manuel Philip vs. State, reported in AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 1, it has been held that before action can be taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C, the obstruction or nuisance must be proved to exist on some way, river or channel which may lawfully be used by the public or on some public place. If the obstruction or nuisance is on some private property, action under Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be taken. Here in the instant case, the noise pollution, by way of barking and howling cannot be construed as a private nuisance, as it affects public at large in a residential area.
17. In M/s. Shiraz Cinema vs. Srinagar Municipal Corporation, reported in Crimes (HC[protected], the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that Section 133 Cr.P.C., providces for the remove of public nuisance. The purpose and object of Section 133 Cr.P.C is not intended to settle private disputes between two members of the public but is intended to protect the public as a whole against the inconvenience of public nuisance. No doubt that the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be used for settlement of disputes between private parties. In the instant case, it cannot be construed that there is any attempt to settle any private dispute.
18. This Court in the decision, Preman, P. vs. M.P.Andy, reported in 1997 (1) CTC 305 has held that the Executive Magistrate directing cutting and removal of branches that protrude over respondents house is a case where private rights are involved.
19. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Limited, reported in 2005 (3) MLJ 109 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of attorney holder cannot depose evidence for any act done by the principal, without any personal knowledge. In the instant case, the power of attorney has deposed the evidence from his personal knowledge, he has also stated the same in his evidence and he was also cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner herein. No doubt, no power of attorney holder can depose anything on the personal knowledge of his principal, however, in the instant case, the evidence deposed by the power of attorney is only from his knowledge, regarding the keeping of dogs by the petitioner. Further, keeping of dogs by the petitioner in the residential area is not disputed by the petitioner.
20. The Court can take judicial notice that barking and howling of dogs in a residential area would certainly cause noise pollution and further, keeping those animals in the residential area, without getting license under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act is also violation. On the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the decisions cited on the side of the petitioner would not make the action taken by the 4th respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate illegal to remove the public nuisance under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Keeping animals detrimental to the interest of the other residents cannot be a right of any person.
21. The Court can take judicial notice that keeping even 6 or 7 dogs in a residential area will cause public nuisance on account of barking and howling of the dogs, similarly, emitting foul smell by the dogs cannot be ruled out, which would also cause public nuisance.
22. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 relying on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Krishna Gopal vs. State of M.P., (1986 Crl. L.J 396) submitted that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can be invoked under Section 133 (1) Cr.P.C., on receiving the report of the Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence if any, as he thinks fit. It was held that on information received, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is empowered to take action in this behalf for either removal or regularising a public nuisance. The action that was initiated on the basis of a Police Report and the complaint received, could be the basis for taking action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. It has been held that merely because only one complainant has come forward to complain about the nuisance, the nuisance cannot be construed that there was no public nuisance, as contemplated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there was complaints by three persons and they complained before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in order to remove the public nuisance and further, as per the impugned order, it is made clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has considered the reports of the Inspector of Police, B4 Police Station, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central) and the report of the Joint Director of Health Services and that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation has also reported that no NOC was issued for rearing dogs at the residence of the petitioner.
23. It is not in dispute that public nuisance may be an annoyance, by way o[censored]nbearable noise or emitting foul smell. The barking and howling of dogs at the residential area is certainly be construed as a public nuisance, since it is an annoyance to public at the residential area. Keeping number of dogs in a residential area would also emit foul smell, injurious to the public health. It cannot be said by the petitioner that there was no howling or barking by the dogs or no emitting of foul smell, since more number of dogs were kept nearby the residence of the respondents 1 to 3. In a civilized society, every one has a right to live peacefully without noise pollution and health hazardous atmosphere, which has been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
24. Even the conduct of any trade or occupation or keeping of any goods or merchandise, injurious to health or physical comfort of the community, could be construed only as a public nuisance. The noise pollution or air pollution cannot be ruled out as an exception. As held by the Kerala High Court, in Madhavi vs. Thilakan, reported in 1989 Crl. L.J 499, with reference to Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India and Section 133 Cr.P.C, it cannot be disputed that right to live includes right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and right to repose good health. Running workshop in certain circumstances can cause air pollution and noise pollution, which could be regulated or prohibited by the authority in invoking the provisions of law. The noise and fuels emanating from the workship will cause health hazardous. Noise pollution and emitting foul smell by keeping dogs in a residential area is no way a lesser hazardous condition than a factory creating noise pollution. Barking and howling of dogs and emitting foul smell in a residential area is undoubtedly a public nuisance.
25. The power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is vested with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate, in order to protect the people from the tyranny of the public nuisance, by way of removing the nuisance.
26. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has not obtained any license from the authorities, as contemplated under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, for keeping dogs. The petitioner is keeping number of dogs not as pet dogs, but for commercial purposes. The power agent of respondents 1 to 3 was examined and he has specifically stated that he was conversant with the facts of the case and he was also cross-examined by the petitioner herein and therefore, there is no error in considering the evidence of the power agent of the complainants, when it is supported by other material evidence available on record. It has been made clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was empowered under Section 133 Cr.P.C., for removal of nuisance and to protect the people from public nuisance. The dogs, being kept by the petitioner were causing nuisance by way of barking and howling in the residential area of the respondents 1 to 3 and hence, the action taken by the 4th respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be construed as an illegal act.
27. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, nuisance is an inconvenience which materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, but it is not capable of precise definition. Section 133 attracts only public nuisance, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, reported in (1995) 4 (Supp) SCC 54. If the inconvenience or annoyance affects public at large, that has to be construed only as public nuisance. In the instant case, it has been established that barking and howling of the dogs have caused inconvenience and annoyance to the respondents 1 to 3 as well as other people residing in the locality and therefore, it is only a public nuisance. Similarly, emitting foul smell is also a public nuisance, causing inconvenience to all the people residing in the locality. As a matter of right, no one is entitled to keep dogs or other animals in a residential area, so as to create public nuisance. Considering the barking and howling of dogs, in addition to emitting foul smell, the concerned authority, empowered under Section 133 Cr.P.C., can take action to remove the nuisance.
28. The object and purpose behind Section 133 of the Code is essentially to prevent public nuisance and which involves a sense o[censored]rgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse immediately irreparable damage would be done to the public, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex court in State of M.P. vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1642.
29. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi, reported in AIR 1981 SC 746 that right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter in a nuisance and hazardous free atmosphere.
30. In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in AIR 1986 SC 180, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the procedure prescribed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act under Section 314 of the Act for removal of encroachments from pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or an unjust act.
31. In Vincent vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 990, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a welfare state, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. In the instant case, it is clear that the respondents 1 to 3 and others are residing in a residential area, where the petitioner is keeping number of dogs, violating Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. Barking and howling of dogs in a residential area will certainly spoil the peaceful and congenial atmosphere of the public in the residential area.
32. It is the duty of the authorities and municipal administration to remove the nuisance, in order to regulate the same, in the interest of the public. Obtaining license has been prescribed under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act. Even if license is obtained by a person, the affected persons can file a complaint to take action under Section 133 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent noise pollution or other hazardous condition.
33. It is well settled that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate is vested with the power to take action, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., to remove any public nuisance. In the instant case, it has been clearly established that the petitioner is keeping large number of dogs, without obtaining license for commercial purposes and also caused noise pollution and hazardous atmosphere in the residential area of the respondents 1 to 3 and therefore, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order to be interfered with by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
34. In the result, confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
tsvn
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Please also note that you may be required to submit a formal complaint to your local Municipality before submitting a petition. These complaints can be placed on the website in most cases. Remember to save your complaint number for future quoting & use.
Hi,
My name is anil and I stay at hrbr layout 1st block 9th a main 2 nd d cross, we are having a serious problem with stray dogs, as the stray dogs pose a great threat for kids in the area.
I know this is a problem all over Bangalore; I am not able to understand why govt is not taking any stringent action on this issue.
It will be great if you take this into consideration ASAP before the any serious tragedy happens again.
I just can’t see the small ones getting killed in front of me just because of a stray dog.
thanks & regards
anil
My name is anil and I stay at hrbr layout 1st block 9th a main 2 nd d cross, we are having a serious problem with stray dogs, as the stray dogs pose a great threat for kids in the area.
I know this is a problem all over Bangalore; I am not able to understand why govt is not taking any stringent action on this issue.
It will be great if you take this into consideration ASAP before the any serious tragedy happens again.
I just can’t see the small ones getting killed in front of me just because of a stray dog.
thanks & regards
anil
Problem of stray dogs — Problem of stray dogs
Dear sir,I am Dinesh residing at Uday nagar near MEG layout, Krishnarajapura, Bangalore -48, we suffering here for more than 8 months due to lot of street dogs.. and number of street dogs grown to more than 10 only in my street we have closely 9 streets in uday nager. every streets there are lots of dogs.. they are very dangerous too, please do favor to get ride of those dogs please.
Thanks in advance,
Dinesh
Email contact: [protected]@yahoo.co.in
Hi
I am staying in Dheeraj Heritage Residency II, Daulat Nagar, Santacruz West. Mumbai 54
I have a complain about the street dogs in our area. In recent days the number of dogs have gone high and can see 10 -15 dogs roaming around. The trouble by them is they start barking in the night and I being working in shift I come home at night and try to sleep thats when these dogs starts barking and sometimes continue for whole night.
We need help on this to take them away or control them. Can somebody help us here. Have made many online complaints to BMC but there is no proper action taken since years.
Awaiting reply
Thanks & Regards
Vinay Dalvi
I am staying in Dheeraj Heritage Residency II, Daulat Nagar, Santacruz West. Mumbai 54
I have a complain about the street dogs in our area. In recent days the number of dogs have gone high and can see 10 -15 dogs roaming around. The trouble by them is they start barking in the night and I being working in shift I come home at night and try to sleep thats when these dogs starts barking and sometimes continue for whole night.
We need help on this to take them away or control them. Can somebody help us here. Have made many online complaints to BMC but there is no proper action taken since years.
Awaiting reply
Thanks & Regards
Vinay Dalvi
Hi
I am staying in Dheeraj Heritage Residency II, Daulat Nagar, Santacruz West. Mumbai 54
I have a complain about the street dogs in our area. In recent days the number of dogs have gone high and can see 10 -15 dogs roaming around. The trouble by them is they start barking in the night and I being working in shift I come home at night and try to sleep thats when these dogs starts barking and sometimes continue for whole night.
We need help on this to take them away or control them. Can somebody help us here. Have made many online complaints to BMC but there is no proper action taken since years.
Awaiting reply
Thanks & Regards
Vinay Dalvi
I am staying in Dheeraj Heritage Residency II, Daulat Nagar, Santacruz West. Mumbai 54
I have a complain about the street dogs in our area. In recent days the number of dogs have gone high and can see 10 -15 dogs roaming around. The trouble by them is they start barking in the night and I being working in shift I come home at night and try to sleep thats when these dogs starts barking and sometimes continue for whole night.
We need help on this to take them away or control them. Can somebody help us here. Have made many online complaints to BMC but there is no proper action taken since years.
Awaiting reply
Thanks & Regards
Vinay Dalvi
Dear Sir,
I am a resident of P-21 Darga Road, Kolkata 700017 which falls under the Ward No. 64 of the KMC. There are a lot of stray dogs around our locality who are roaming around day and night on the streets and they are also being fed by some of the residents of the locality as a result of which they have become very ferocious and vulnerable and thereby causing threat to the passerby's. Although we have made several complaints with the concerned authorities but nothing has been done till date. Therefore would make my earnest request to you to kindly do something in this matter and relieve us from the menace of these stray dogs for which we will remain grateful to you always.
Yours Truly
Khalid Bin Rashid.
P-21 Darga Road
Kolkata 700 017.
I am a resident of P-21 Darga Road, Kolkata 700017 which falls under the Ward No. 64 of the KMC. There are a lot of stray dogs around our locality who are roaming around day and night on the streets and they are also being fed by some of the residents of the locality as a result of which they have become very ferocious and vulnerable and thereby causing threat to the passerby's. Although we have made several complaints with the concerned authorities but nothing has been done till date. Therefore would make my earnest request to you to kindly do something in this matter and relieve us from the menace of these stray dogs for which we will remain grateful to you always.
Yours Truly
Khalid Bin Rashid.
P-21 Darga Road
Kolkata 700 017.
Dear Sir,
The Stray dogs in Panthara Palya(New Name is Pramod layout and Reddy Layout Pin 560039) between Nice Link Road and Nayanadahalli are creating lot of problems like
- Chasing the people on bikes
- Chasing Kids who are borrowing food items
Before they attack and bit the people, please take some action to control them or shift them to safer place.
This is my humble request and do needful.
Ramesh
[protected]
The Stray dogs in Panthara Palya(New Name is Pramod layout and Reddy Layout Pin 560039) between Nice Link Road and Nayanadahalli are creating lot of problems like
- Chasing the people on bikes
- Chasing Kids who are borrowing food items
Before they attack and bit the people, please take some action to control them or shift them to safer place.
This is my humble request and do needful.
Ramesh
[protected]
Dear Sir / Madam,
Am a resident of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar (Door No. 7-1-396/2/A/3/10), would like to bring to your notice that the stray dogs problem (20 - 25 in number) has been increasing day by day in our area leading to much inconvenience day and night times also silently biting the children, who are playing in front of the houses. I request the concerned authorities to take necessary steps to , on all the surrounding apartment residents behalf to take necessary action sooner sending a dog van to move all the dogs...
Thanks & Regards.
Address:
Door No. 7-1-396/2/A/3/10
21/EWS, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar,
Hyderabad - 500 038.
Am a resident of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar (Door No. 7-1-396/2/A/3/10), would like to bring to your notice that the stray dogs problem (20 - 25 in number) has been increasing day by day in our area leading to much inconvenience day and night times also silently biting the children, who are playing in front of the houses. I request the concerned authorities to take necessary steps to , on all the surrounding apartment residents behalf to take necessary action sooner sending a dog van to move all the dogs...
Thanks & Regards.
Address:
Door No. 7-1-396/2/A/3/10
21/EWS, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar,
Hyderabad - 500 038.
Its true we are seeing lot of stray dogs in our area JP Nagar phase 7 (Brigade Millenium and Brigade Gardenia - Puttin Halli RBI Layout ) has gone up in the last few months. BBMP wake up
This is regarding a serious issue of a large number of stray dogs in Shalimar Garden Extn-II, Sahibabad area (under Ghaziabad dist). The number of dogs have been increasing day by day in the B-Block area of the above location and this has been causing serious troubles for the residents and visitors. There have been a number of cases of dog-bites in the last few months but nothing has been done to remove these stray dogs from the area. It has been highly inconvenient for people, especially young children who play outside and are more vulnerable for getting bitten and injured by these stray animals. The authorities need to wake up and do something to resolve this problem in the locality ASAP.
Thanks
Thanks
I am a resident of vijayabank narmada colony, 4th cross, 1st main, dodda banaswadi .there are already 8big stray dogs in our cross alone in which a dog has littered 7 puppys which are menancing the whole street .The bigger dogs bite the puppys which are bleeding and the smaller ones bite each other .we feel very unsafe to leave our children out to play or walk on the streets.we kindly request to take action and catch these dogs as soon as possible.
Dear MCD officials
There is a stray dog in our locality - H 5 block, Sector 11, Rohini. This she dog has gone bersek and is biting anyone she feels like. Atleast 10 people have been bit by now and numerous have been ran after dangerously.
Can you pls send your dog squad to enable us get rid of this dog. She has become really dangerous for the children, servants or anyone entering the block on foot.
Regards
Ravi Arora
There is a stray dog in our locality - H 5 block, Sector 11, Rohini. This she dog has gone bersek and is biting anyone she feels like. Atleast 10 people have been bit by now and numerous have been ran after dangerously.
Can you pls send your dog squad to enable us get rid of this dog. She has become really dangerous for the children, servants or anyone entering the block on foot.
Regards
Ravi Arora
Yes, I agree with you. Stray dog menace has become a serious cause of concern towards not only the young kids but also adults especially those commuting on two wheelers. A simple example to quote for is WARD NO: 75 NEAR DURGAPARMESHWARI TEMPLE, 6TH AND 7TH BLOCK VIDYARANYAPURA BANGTALORE 560 097 where the dog menace is at its peak between 7 and 10 pm.
This has created a nuesence and all the residents hesitate to shop even during those hours. If BBMP could take a SOS call in moving all these stray dogs, it would save if not 10 atleast 1 child or adult being victim to RABIES.
subhash Y.T
[protected]
This has created a nuesence and all the residents hesitate to shop even during those hours. If BBMP could take a SOS call in moving all these stray dogs, it would save if not 10 atleast 1 child or adult being victim to RABIES.
subhash Y.T
[protected]
I stay in Jaipuria Sunrise Greens society at Indirapuram in Ghaziabad.Address is 12A ahinsa Khand. Inside the society there are around 20-25 stray dogs , which are a very big nusiance & danger to all residents of society specially kids , aged persons & ladies.
I would request to pls make arrangement for sending dog catcher to our society.
If anyone is having any idea about any source to help in this regard, pls communicate at the earliest. I would be extremely thankfull.
rgds,
Mohit Pant
cell [protected]
I would request to pls make arrangement for sending dog catcher to our society.
If anyone is having any idea about any source to help in this regard, pls communicate at the earliest. I would be extremely thankfull.
rgds,
Mohit Pant
cell [protected]
R. MOHAN — ANIMALS NUISANCE
SIR,THE NUMBER OF DOGS IN OUR COLONY HAS BEEN INCREASING AND ARE CREATING A NUSANCE. MCD REQUESTED DOES PRECISOUS LITTLE FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE SITUATION. OUR COLONY IS L-II/177B D.D.A. FLATS, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI 110 019.
WITH REGARDS
R MOHAN
L-II/177B D.D.A. FLATS, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI 110 019
[protected]
Hi Sir,
I am residing in Kumara Swamy layout. There are lot of stray dogs in our Area especially in 24th cross and 25th cross of 1st Stage Kumara Swamy layout. Its been very difficult to walk in the Street in the night as well as day time.Many people are bitten by this Stray dogs. Stray Dogs are so wild that they are attacking people that is leading to death in several cases.I am one of the victim and now undergoing treatment.Till now none of the concerned people have taken action on this. And it so diffucult for the kids to play on Street. Requesting the concerned authorities to take severe action on this and do the needful.
We would appreciate eariler action on this
Thanks
I am residing in Kumara Swamy layout. There are lot of stray dogs in our Area especially in 24th cross and 25th cross of 1st Stage Kumara Swamy layout. Its been very difficult to walk in the Street in the night as well as day time.Many people are bitten by this Stray dogs. Stray Dogs are so wild that they are attacking people that is leading to death in several cases.I am one of the victim and now undergoing treatment.Till now none of the concerned people have taken action on this. And it so diffucult for the kids to play on Street. Requesting the concerned authorities to take severe action on this and do the needful.
We would appreciate eariler action on this
Thanks
Thanks and Regards
Shambhavi
[protected]
3-A Gokarna society, Sahar road, near air port colony, Andheri east 400099