Stray Dogs: Contempt Action Sought at HC Against Top Kerala Govt Officials [Read Petition]
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
(Non compliance of the judgment in WP(C) No.26164 of 2015 dated 04-11-2015 of this Hon’ble Court)
Petitioner/Petitioner in WP(C)
:-
Sat Jeev Karuna
Parivar Trust having address at C/202,
Guru Govind
Singh Nagar, Lodha Heritage, Achole road,
Nallasopara
(East), Dist: Thane, PIN code; 401 209, Maharashtra, Represented by its
Secretary, Reena Richard, aged 46 years,
residing at
N.G.Suncity Phase-2 CHS Ltd, Thakkur Village,
Kandivali
(east), Mumbai 400 101, Maharashtra.
Vs.
Respondents/Respondents in
WP(C) :-
1.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariate,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2.
Mr.T.K.Jose, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Secretary to Local Self Government Department,
Government Secretariate, ThiruvananthapuramDistrict-695 001.
3.
Mr.Loknath Behra,
age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Director General of Police, Police
headquarters,
Thiruvananthapuram
– 695 010
All
notices and process to the Petitioner may be served on his counsel Sidharth
Menon, Advocate, Kochi-31.
All notices and process to the Respondents be served at
their address showed above or through their counsel they chose to appoint
any.
Contempt Case (Civil) filed under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
The petitioner states as
follows:-
- The Petitioner herein is the
Petitioner in writ petition (C) No 26164/2015 and representing a trust by
named “Sat Jeev Karuna Parivar Trust” constituted for the purpose, inter
alia, prevention of cruelty to animals in the matter relating to the
wanton cruelty meted to the stray dogs in Kerala ignoring the salient
provisions of the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules 2001. The said writ petition is for direction to
the Respondents to implement the Animal Birth Control (dog) rules
2001 and also to stop the inhuman and brutal killing of stray dogs. The above said Trust is also 8th
respondent in WP(C) No.2855 of 2011. The above sais Trust approached this
Honorable Court in W.P(C) No 26164/2015 on a detailed consideration of the
issue, and this Honorable court
heard and disposed off the said writ petition along with a bunch of writ
petitions and vide its judgment dated 04/11/2015 had issued certain
direction to the Respondents and other concerned parties. True copy of the
judgment in W.P(C) No 26164/2015 dated 04/11/2015 is produced herewith and
marked as Annexure-A1.
- As per the Annexure A1 this Honorable Court directed
the Respondents to comply with the directions within two weeks from the
receipt of the copy of Annexure-A1 judgment. The decreetal portion of the Annexure A1judgement which is
paragraph 72 of Annexure-A1 judgment is extracted as follows ;
(i)
All the
local authorities shall exercise the power of :
(a)
Capturing
of stray dogs in accordance with Rule 7 of the 2001 rules and take immediate
action on receipt of complaint.
(b)
Carry on
destruction of stray dogs in accordance with Rules 9 and 10 of the 2001 Rules
and directions of the Monitoring Committee under Rule 5(b) if any as well as
any instruction of the Animal welfare Board given under section 9(f) of the
1960 Act.
(ii)
All the
local authorities who have not yet formed Monitoring Committee as required by
Rule 4 of the 2001 rules shall form the monitoring committee within two weeks
from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before the Commissioner/Chief
of the Local Authority.
(iii)
All the
local authorities in consultation with the Monitoring Committee shall set up a
dog control cell to receive complaints about dog menace, dog bites and
information about rabid dogs within two weeks from the formation of the
Monitoring Committee. Public Notice of such dog control cell shall also be
given.
(iv)
All local
Authorities shall provide for dog pounds (including kennels shelter) dog van
with driver and dog catchers ambulance–cum-clinical van, incinerators, as
required by Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules at the earliest and not later than by the
next financial year.
(v)
The state
government shall also ensure that necessary infrastructure as directed above be
acquired by all the local authorities and the financial commitment be fulfilled
by the local authority. The state shall also provide necessary financial
assistance to the extent necessary to the local authorities.
(vi)
All the local
authorities under the supervision of Animal Husbandry Department shall carry on
vaccination and sterilization programme of stray dogs as contemplated by Government
order dated 17.09.2015.
(vii) The Animal
Husbandry Department of the state in collaboration with the concerned local
authorities shall ensure that veterinary hospitals are set up if not already in
existence at a district level, poly clinics at Taluk Head Quarters level and Taluk
level as contemplated by Government order dated 17.09.2015.
(viii) The Animal Welfare Board of India also takes steps for
providing financial assistance for providing financial assistance whenever
necessary for construction of sheds , water troughs and the like and by
providing for veterinary assistance as contemplated by Section 9(d) and rescue
homes and animals shelters as contemplated by Section 9(g) of the 1960 Act. “
- Several of the directions in Annexure-A1 have not
heeded by the Respondents particularly in the
matter of clause (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) of paragraph 72
of the judgment. The time frame for the implementation of the directions
as contained in para 72 of the judgment had expired. Therefore the Respondents have rendered
themselves liable to be summoned tried and punished under the provisions
of the Contempt of Court Act 1971.
- The Respondents have violated the positive directions
contained in Annexure-A1 judgment. The Respondents are sleeping over the
issue. However it is not a case
where there is violation of judgment simplicitor. The circumstances under which the
judgment is rendered in 2015 was to meet an urgent situation of allegation
of stray dog menace which could be tackled only by the implementation of
the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules
2001. Kerala is facing a situation where consequent of media hype of stray
dog menace. There has been a
situation where person are taking law into their hands by killing the
stray dogs cruelly and brutally without recourse to the Animal Birth
Control (Dog) Rules 2001.
- Despite the Annexure-A1 judgment the stray dogs are
being killed in the state in an inhuman and brutal way and the Respondents
are keeping silent on the issue.
The petitioner had send notice to the Respondents and requested to
take immediate action to stop the brutal killing of the stray dogs. True
copy of the notice dated 31-10-2016 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A2. Annexure-A2
notice was received by the Respondents and they are legally bound to
implement Annexure-A1 judgment since there are positive directions in the
judgment.
- Stray dogs were killed under the leadership of the
ward councilor Miss Mini Raju and Mr.Jose Maveli at Njarakkal Panchayat in
Ernakulam and an F.I.R No.1128/2016 was registered with the Njarakkal
police station. The Petitioner made
a complaint to the Njarakkal police.
True copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the
Njarakkal Police Station dated 06-09-2016 is produced herewith and marked
as Annexure-A3. Copy of
the photographs shows the dogs were brutally killed is produced herewith
and marked as Annexure-A4.
- Stray dogs were killed under the leadership of the
ward councilor Mr.Jill Periyapuram at Piravom Panchayt in Ernakulam and an
F.I.R No.1037/16 dated 16-09-2016 was registered with the Piravom police
station. Copy of the photographs of the said killing is produced herein
and marked as Annexure A5.
- Stray dogs were killed under the leadership of Mr.Saji
Manjakadambil of Kerala Congress Youth Front (M) at Kottayam and the dead
body of the said dogs were paraded by tying in a pole in the streets and
an F.I.R was registered. Complaints were made by animal lovers to the
Respondents. Copy of the
photographs showing the public parading the dead bodies of dogs is
produced herein and marked as Annexure
A6.
- Stray dogs were killed under the leadership of the
Mr.Jose Maveli, chairman stray dog free movement and Miss.Prema at Varkala
in Thiruvanathapuram district and an F.I.R was registered with the
varkala police station. Complaints were made by animal
activists. Copy of the photographs showing
the accused standing near the dead bodies of dogs is produced herein and
marked as Annexure A7.
10.
All
the above issues aroused only because of the non-implementation of Annexure-A1
judgment by the respondents.
11.
From
the facts as said above the Respondents have
rendered themselves liable to be summoned tried and punished under Sections 10 and 11 of the contempt of courts Act 1973 on the
following among other grounds.
GROUNDS
A.
The
judgment of this Honorable Court as contained in Annexure A1 and the directions
there in paragraph 72 are explicit and clear.
It requires the Respondents to comply
the directions of para 72 of the judgment.
The Respondents had ample and sufficient time to comply with the
directions above said. However in total disregard
to the dictum of this Honorable court they have not cared to take any step in
the matter.
- The
careless attitude of the Respondents is in wanton disregard of the
direction of this Honorable Court inviting severe action under the
Contempt of Court Act. This is
particularly so since this judgment is rendered in the complex situation
where in claim in the matter of citizens apprehending attack by stray dogs
and the right of such stray dog to exist herein in the earth were in
issue. Had the judgment of this Honorable Court as contained in Annexure-A1 be implemented in time the
alarming situation now in issue in Kerala regarding stray dog menace would
not have existed.
- For there and other reason to be submitted at the
time of hearing it is humbly submitted that this Honorable court be
pleased to summon try and punish the Respondents
above named under Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act
1971.
The petitioner will rely upon the
documents a list whereof annexed hereto.
In the above
circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to ;
i)
Initiate proceeding against
respondents for violation of Annexure-A1 judgment for committing contempt of
this Hon’ble Court ;
ii)
To issue such other
writ or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
Sat Jeev Karuna Parivar Trust :
Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand
and others :
Respondents
A
F F I D A V I T
I, Reena Richard, aged 46 years, W/o.Richard,
Secretary, Sat Jeev Karuna Parivar Trust having address
at C/202, Guru Govind Singh Nagar, Lodha Heritage, Achole road, Nallasopara
(East), Dist: Thane, PIN code; 401 209, Maharashtra, residing at 2E406, N.G.Suncity
Phase-2 CHS Ltd, Thakkur Village, Kandivali
(east), Mumbai 400 101, Maharashtra, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
follows:
1.
I am the Secretary of the petitioner in the contempt of courts case
(civil) and am conversant with the facts of the case.
2.
I have filed the contempt of court case to initiate proceeding for
civil contempt of court against the Respondents. The contempt of court is well founded. I am entitled to get all the reliefs prayed
for in the case and the Respondent is liable to be proceeded against as prayed
for in the contempt of court case.
3. All the facts stated in the contempt of courts
case and the contentions in the grounds are true and correct.
4.
The submission made in the contempt of courts case are based on my
personal knowledge and information and on instructions received by me. I have
not filed any Contempt of Courts Case earlier seeking same relief. It is
submitted that the civil contempt committed by the respondents are not an
offence punishable under Indian Penal Code.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
proceed against the respondent under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act and to punish them for having committed civil contempt.
All the facts stated above are true and
correct.
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Deponent.
Solemnly
affirmed and signed before me by the deponent who is personally known to me on
this the 3rd day of November, 2016 at my office at Ernakulam.
Sidharth
Menon, Advocate
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
Petitioner
:-
Sat Jeev Karuna
Parivar Trust having address at C/202,
Guru Govind
Singh Nagar, Lodha Heritage, Achole road,
Nallasopara
(East), Dist: Thane, PIN code; 401 209, Maharashtra, Represented by its
Secretary, Reena Richard, aged 46 years,
residing at
N.G.Suncity Phase-2 CHS Ltd, Thakkur Village,
Kandivali
(east), Mumbai 400 101, Maharashtra.
Vs.
Respondent:-
1.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariate,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2.
Mr.T.K.Jose, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Secretary to Local Self Government Department,
Government Secretariate, ThiruvananthapuramDistrict-695 001.
3.
Mr.Loknath Behra,
age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Director General of Police, Police
headquarters,
Thiruvananthapuram
– 695 010
Memo of
Charges against the 1st Respondent
That you, Mr.S.M.Vijayanand, age not known to the petitioner, father’s name
not known to the petitioner, Chief Secretary to Government, Government
Secretariate, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001, by refusing to act in accordance with
the direction contained in Annexure-AI judgment. You have by your said
act committed civil
contempt as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and hence
liable to be proceeded against under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the said Act and
punished accordingly for having committed civil contempt.
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
Petitioner
:-
Sat Jeev Karuna
Parivar Trust having address at C/202,
Guru Govind
Singh Nagar, Lodha Heritage, Achole road,
Nallasopara
(East), Dist: Thane, PIN code; 401 209, Maharashtra, Represented by its
Secretary, Reena Richard, aged 46 years,
residing at
N.G.Suncity Phase-2 CHS Ltd, Thakkur Village,
Kandivali
(east), Mumbai 400 101, Maharashtra.
Vs.
Respondent:-
1.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariate,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2.
Mr.T.K.Jose, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Secretary to Local Self Government Department,
Government Secretariate, ThiruvananthapuramDistrict-695 001.
3.
Mr.Loknath Behra,
age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Director General of Police, Police
headquarters,
Thiruvananthapuram
– 695 010
Memo of
Charges against the 2nd Respondent
That you, Mr.T.K.Jose, age not known to the petitioner, father’s name
not known to the petitioner, Secretary to Local Self Government Department,
Government Secretariate, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001, by refusing to act in
accordance with the direction contained in Annexure-AI judgment. You have by
your said act committed
civil contempt as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and
hence liable to be proceeded against under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the said
Act and punished accordingly for having committed civil contempt.
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
Petitioner
:-
Sat Jeev Karuna
Parivar Trust having address at C/202,
Guru Govind
Singh Nagar, Lodha Heritage, Achole road,
Nallasopara
(East), Dist: Thane, PIN code; 401 209, Maharashtra, Represented by its
Secretary, Reena Richard, aged 46 years,
residing at
N.G.Suncity Phase-2 CHS Ltd, Thakkur Village,
Kandivali
(east), Mumbai 400 101, Maharashtra.
Vs.
Respondent:-
1.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariate,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2.
Mr.T.K.Jose, age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Secretary to Local Self Government Department,
Government Secretariate, ThiruvananthapuramDistrict-695 001.
3.
Mr.Loknath Behra,
age not known to the petitioner,
father’s
name not known to the petitioner,
Director General of Police, Police
headquarters,
Thiruvananthapuram
– 695 010
Memo of
Charges against the 3rd Respondent
That you, Mr.Loknath Behra, age not known to the petitioner, father’s name
not known to the petitioner, Director General of Police, Police headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010, by refusing to act in
accordance with the direction contained in Annexure-AI judgment. You have by
your said act committed
civil contempt as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and
hence liable to be proceeded against under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the said
Act and punished accordingly for having committed civil contempt.
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner
Presented on
: 03.11.2016
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
(Non compliance of the judgment in WP(C) No.26164 of 2015 dated 04-11-2015 of this Hon’ble Court)
Sat Jeev Karuna Parivar Trust :
Petitioner/ Petitioner in WP(C)
Vs.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand
and others :
Respondents/Respondents in WP(C)
CONTEMPT OF COURTS CASE (CIVIL) FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10, 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.
Sidharth
Menon
Advocate
Kochi-31.
|
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
Sat Jeev Karuna Parivar Trust :
Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand
and others : Respondents
I
N D E X
|
Sl. No.
|
Particulars
|
Page Nos.
|
|
1.
|
Synopsis
|
A
|
|
2.
|
Contempt
of Courts Case (Civil)
|
1-6
|
|
3.
|
Affidavit
|
7
|
|
4.
|
Memo of
charges
|
8-10
|
|
5.
|
Annexure-AI True
copy of the judgment in W.P(C) No 26164/2015 dated 04/11/2015.
|
11-
|
|
6.
|
Annexure-A2 True copy of the notice dated 31-10-2016.
|
|
|
7.
|
Annexure-A3 True copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner
before the Njarakkal Police Station dated 06-09-2016.
|
|
|
8.
|
Annexure-A4 Copy of the photographs shows the dogs were brutally
killed.
|
|
|
9.
|
Annexure-A5 Copy of the photographs of the killing of dogs at
Piravom.
|
|
|
10.
|
Annexure-A6 Copy of the photographs showing the public parading
the dead bodies of dogs at Kottayam.
|
|
|
11.
|
Annexure-A7 Copy of the photographs showing the accused standing
near the dead bodies of dogs at Varkala.
|
|
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner
-A-
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
Contempt Case (Civil) No. of 2016
Sat Jeev Karuna Parivar Trust :
Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.S.M.Vijayanand
and others : Respondents
S Y N O P S
I S
The Petitioner in the writ
Petitioner in writ petition WP(C) No 26164/2015 and
also 8th respondent in WP(C) No 28255/2011. The judgment (Annexure A1) have issued certain direction to the Respondents in
the matter of Animal Birth Control (dog) Rules 2001. Despite sufficient passage
of time till date Respondents have not care to even consider the implantation
in (Annexure A1). Hence the Petitioner is compelled to
file the present petition for contempt of court petition.
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
Counsel
for the petitioner