- (1.) All the applications for intervention stand allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the intervenors, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, the Amicus Curiae, engaged in Writ Petition (C) No.599 of 2015 [Anupam Trivathi vs. Union of India and Others].
(2.) Though this matter was to be finally heard today, yet due to paucity of time, it has not been finally taken up for hearing for the purpose of final disposal. That apart, number of issues have also cropped up including the defensibility of the judgment and orders passed by the High Courts of Bombay, Kerala and Karnataka. We have been apprised that initially in 2006, the Kerala High Court had passed a judgment dismissing the writ petition, which was filed for protection of the stray dogs. Recently, another Division Bench has passed a judgment on 4th November, 2015, taking the view that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001, (for short, 'the 2001 Rules') shall prevail over the provisions contained in Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the legislation passed by the State of Maharashtra forming the subject matter of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended by Section 191 -BA - Control and other provisions relating to dogs in the year 1975, shall withstand the test of repugnancy if challenged as there was assent from the President of India under Article 200 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, we do not intend to enter into the said debate today.;