NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has said that municipal authorities are not expected to completely wipe out all stray animals - whether cattle, monkeys or dogs - from the streets in the national capital while dealing with a petition to “properly deal with” the issue.
Justice C Hari Shankar was hearing a contempt plea alleging wilful disobedience, by the municipal authorities in complying with a 2019 High Court order on the stray animal menace issue. It said that the authorities must take ‘concerted, sincere and optimum steps’ to ensure that stray animals are rehabilitated and do not become a menace for the residents or traffic plying on the road.
“It cannot be expected that the municipal authorities can completely wipe out, from the roads and municipal areas of Delhi, all stray animals, whether cattle, monkeys, dogs or other animals,” the order read.
In the earlier order, the court said, “We expect, from the respondents, that a committee will be constituted immediately, in regards to stray cattle, stray dogs, monkeys etc, so that they may evolve some scheme or policy on how to control these stray cattle, street dogs and monkeys and the action will be initiated immediately.”
It had said that it was the duty of the respondents to provide anti-rabies vaccination to government hospitals or dispensaries, which shall be provided at the earliest. In the plea seeking contempt action against the authorities, petitioner Salek Chand Jain alleged there has been no sufficient compliance with the 2019 directions.
The court perused the status reports filed by the authorities in which it was stated that presently, the estimated cattle population in Delhi after the COVID-19 pandemic is around 83,671 and the four Gaushalas present in the city have sufficient space to accommodate abandoned cattle.
The court said the assertions contained in the status reports suffice to constitute substantial compliance with the directions of the 2019 order which has to be meaningfully understood.
In any event, given the status reports filed by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is contumacious or wilful disobedience on their part in complying with the directions contained in the order dated September 25, 2019. There is a distinction between contempt and enforcement, the court said.
“In the event that the petitioner is still unhappy with the measures that have been taken, it would be open to him to agitate the said grievance in appropriate proceedings,” the court added.