- (1.) By this interlocutory application, Mr. Jose Sabastin had prayed for the following reliefs :- "(i) Issue an interim direction directing to the second respondent to give an appropriate compensation o the 1st applicants family as this Hon'ble Court deem fit as there is no other provision to protect the interest of the applicant. (ii) Issue an interim direction by appointing a commission to go through the issues and the recent attacks of stray dogs and what medical facilities and protections providing by the Government and submit this report to the Hon'ble Court as this Hon'ble Court held in the case of Bandhua Mukthi Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 3 SCC 161." We have heard Mr. Biju, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel for the State of Kerala and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Amicus Curiae in the application.
(2.) It is agonizingly submitted by Mr. Biju that the horror of death or grievous injury hunts the psyche of many an individual in various districts in the State of Kerala as they fall prey to the dog bites.
(3.) Learned counsel should submit that there should be respect for the provisions made in Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 to protect the animals but that does not really mean that the human beings should become prey to the attacks of the stray dogs, for it is the obligation of the State to see that the said dogs are sterilized or from time to time dealt with in accordance with law.;