THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29907 of 2010 BETWEEN: Visakha Society for Prevention of Cruelty to animals (Reg.No.865/96) rep. by its Joint Secretary, 26-15-200, Mainroad, Visakhapatnam 530 001. …. PETITIONER And 1. Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, and another. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri S. Sriramachandra Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: G. P. for Municipal Administration The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner-society claims to have been established in the year 1996 with the object of improving the conditions of animals. It claims to have rescued large number of animals, besides taking care by providing anti-rabies vaccines and health checkups to street dogs. The petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 29.06.2009 with the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and the 1st Respondent viz., Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) to conduct animal birth control and anti rabies programme in stray dogs in order to control stray dog population in GVMC. The programme was to be implemented jointly by AWBI, GVMC and the petitioner-society as stakeholders. The objective of the MOU was to cover 10000 stray dogs within a period of 10 months from 29.06.2009. The programme was financed jointly by AWBI and GVMC for 5000 dogs each at Rs.425/- per dog to be paid to the petitioner. The said MOU ended in March, 2010. No fresh MOU has been entered into between the parties. In the meanwhile, the Standing Committee of the GVMC met on 24.07.2010 and adopted a resolution No.92/2010. It was resolved therein that the birth control programme be taken up by the GVMC through its own Veterinary Public Health Department thereby dropping the proposal to enter into MOU with the petitioner-society. It is this resolution that is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard Sri S.Sriramachandra Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent. Challenge to the said resolution has been made on the premise that the 1st Respondent is under an obligation to undertake the birth control programme jointly with the participation of the petitioner and AWBI. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st Respondent cannot by itself undertake and execute the programme and it is bound to ensure participation of the petitioner and enter into MOU with it. The petitioner seeks to rely on the provisions of Rule 6 of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (for short ‘the Rules’) to support the said contention. Based on the said Rule, it is contended that the aforesaid resolution is unsustainable. On the other hand, it is the contention of the 1st Respondent that there is no obligation on the part of the GVMC to execute the programme only through MOU with the petitioner. The 1st Respondent being a civic body has resolved to conduct the programme through its own Department. The petitioner has no right to compel it to undertake the programme through the petitioner at a huge financial commitment. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, made Rules called as the “Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001”. Rule 4 provides for constitution of monitoring committee consisting of the Commissioner/Chief of the local authority as the ex-officio chairman of the committee; a representative of the Public Health Department of the local authority; a representative of the Animal Welfare Department, if any of the local authority; a veterinary doctor; a representative of the District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and, at least two representatives from the Animal Welfare Organizations operating within the said local authority. Rule 5 provides that the committee shall be responsible for planning and management of dog control programme and enumerates the functions to be discharged by such committee. Rule 6 provides for obligations of the local authority. Since the petitioner-society seeks to rely on Rule 6, it is useful to extract the same. 6. Obligations of the local Authority: - 1) The local authority shall provide for – a) establishment of a sufficient number of dogs pounds including animal kennels/shelters which may be managed by animal welfare organizations; b) requisite number of dog vans with ramps for the capture and transportation of street dogs; c) one driver and two trained dog catchers to be provided for each dog van; d) an ambulance cum clinical van to be provided as mobile center for sterilization and immunization; e) incinerators to be installed by the local authority for disposal of carcasses; f) Periodic repair of shelter or pound; 2) If the Municipal Corporation or the local authority thinks it expedient to control street dog population, it shall be incumbent upon them to sterilize and immunize street Dogs with the participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and the local authority. 3) The animal welfare organizations shall be reimbursed the expenses of sterilization/immunization at a rate to be fixed by the Committee on fortnightly basis based on the number of sterilization/immunization done. Laying emphasis on sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, it is contended that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to enter into MOU with the petitioner and that without such MOU the respondents cannot entertain any programme. The said contention cannot be countenanced. A plain reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 shows that in the event of expediency to control street dog population, if the Municipal Corporation or the local authority thinks it fit, such Municipal Corporation or the local authority shall undertake the programme with the participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and the local authority. Rule 6 provides plurality of choice not only of animal welfare organizations but private individuals and the local authorities. At this stage it is useful to notice the definition of “Local Authority” as defined in Rule 2(e) of the Rules, which is as follows. “Rule 2(e): “local authority” means a municipal committee, district board or other authority for the time being invested by law with the control and administration of any matters within a specified local area;” From a combined reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 and the meaning of local authority as defined, it is manifest that the programme can be executed with the participation of a municipal committee also to the exclusion of animal welfare organization. When sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 has provided for a choice, it cannot be insisted to invoke participation of animal welfare organization alone. In the instant case, as per the impugned resolution the programme is proposed to be undertaken by the GVMC through its own department and it is not for the petitioner-society to insist upon its inclusion in the programme. The petitioner has no legal right to compel the 1st respondent to ensure its own participation nor can it compel exclusion of participation of either individuals or the local authority. Equally the petitioner has no right to compel the 1st respondent to enter into MOU with it. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 20th January, 2011 Skmr/Js.