HIGH CtWRT OF JUOCATURE CHHAniSGARH : BILASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'bte Shri VIjay Kumar Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETITION N0.3247 OF 2006 Petittoner: Resoondente SatH Lawrence, S/o Lat® Shri K.C. Lawence, Aged about 47 years, R/o Railway Bungalow No.42Q, Control Chaal, Mohan, NaCT>ur (M.S.}, Gsneral Secretary, South Ea^em Central Raihflfay Men's Union, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus 1. Union of Indla - ttwough tte Secretary, Raihways, Rdl EBiawan, Rafi Ahmed (Gdwai Maig, New Ddhi. 2. Th® Railways ProtecCon Force fcrough its Dhnsfonat Security Commandant, Rauhways Protecfion Fore®,Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The Souttt Ea^ Cenfral Rafiways, through ite General Manager, Souft East Central Railways. Bitepur Present:- Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, counsd for Uis petifener. Ms. Yoshita M, Advocato app^irs on behatf <rf Mr. ^nit Choudhary, counset for the respondente. «»ALO DER) (Passed on 21st December, 2<W») This petffion under Artfcte 226/227 of the ConstituUon of hidta has been insfituted for folloimng direcfons and to restrain Raihway ProtecBon Forcs, Bilaspur (henceforth 'RPF) from disposing <rf Police Dog - "MoT to suitabte ck^ lover as planned by them: "That the RPF bs dired;ed to make propw arrangement for food and lodging of "MoUii" and provtde him attendants who would be •sieaAs}|iotS8J9i|»joisjnust soiAjas q| Buynp BUUIBAG sem Bop aifl yoiqm 'seBiueiue pue saB!fs»St11®spiAOJd p|noys <&ifl 'siaAoi Bop aiqeijns o»euaes et|»Buneuop Aq Bop sin jo Buisodsip p peaisuj teift tuaiuiJKtoa eiB uoysss uesq sey Ainp e 'ajo^wiB 'pue psjouBi sq louueo oures afl 'tuoujyedaa ein o} seaiAJss e|qen|eA pojepuaj seq sow Bop eift tetft Buipuatuoo 'eyB ^ut 'uoiisad SIIB peiniBSui seq 'ssjn^sn &IIAII K4 uoissediuoo SAeq o»apuf y> uazitjo uo uoiieBjiqo letusiuepun) sepiAojd I|O!I|M 'epui jfi uoiinnsuoo siftio (8)vtS 9PWV ^apun A»np|e}uaiuepunt e BuiAa< J9AO| (euaue aq otjissiuiq Buiuiiep 'jndseiia 'uoiun s.usw <e»|rey |B4ueo luaiseg qinog y> Aieisjoas l^suso e si oi|»'jsuojijisd (£ •&ieAO| Bop eiqeiins o»u eieuop 0| psuue|d jdy '&»p8i|»y> ssodap <4 Jop^o uj 'sjo^ajetfl '.lopoa AjeuijetaA ^ ^»"Psoiiod ^<y tyu" p&ie|oep usaq seut Bop eift 'uofteuiuiBxe enp jsyv •ao soitoojeu 'ssAisoidxs ps^) o» pue sieunuyo cpu oi uieyi p3d|ai| 'suoiiejedo snossj 'qojess snojsuinu »noBuiAueo ui jda oi SSOIAJSS s(j pejapusj Bop eqi -sdn |ss Aemirey oifl y> AIIUIOIA ui Jo su)BJt pieoq uo siuuo peniiuuioo oqrt sieuiiuua UMOP i|3efl o» pasn OS|G pue seiysdojd Aemiiey 01 ^ynoss BujpiAojd ^o sesocbnd i0( jdy Aq pssn sem Bop 941 •pssiK| Aq jeqouy ueuusqoa e si i| •^eSI.-t.l-S "6 ujioq se».ly^,, A|siueu BOQ saiioc} jdy (z /eujog 01 sAep ui ejrqjpusdxs siq JSAOO 01 ^iaioiuns aq ||ei|s qaqm 'uoisuad e pied sq jwn« 41 -Aiessaoeu eq p|no se (jiojiuoo pue » 9ne iflu»papuwrf aq sq (eifl pue s|BAje|Uj je|n8ej ye ,JIROOT» jo sdn-spei<3 iBaipaui jedojd ip( apjAojd o» pepsjjp aq jdU ®<ftWl "spaeu siq pue tuiy ^aye i|oo| ot uiiy joj AiSAisnpxa <^" 4) Respondents contested the peUUon, inter afo, on Bie ground fliat ey have not ignored Vhe seiwcw of DOQ Moti. They ara taMng proper care and attentfon. They never abandoned flie dog. The dog renctered its services ftom 21-1-1^. On 8-5-2006 Bie dog was iU, therefore, ft was kept uncter treatment of Dr. R.M. Tripathi, Residency Veterinary Offlcer of Divisional Veterinary Hosptol, Bilaspur, who on 11-&-^X)6 after due examination, certified thatUie Dog MoU has become depressed, sli^lish, was toosing its stamina, even not respondit^i to the treatn^it and wss not (it (br Pofice duty, therefore, he recommended for cuUing and dfeposal <rf tte dog. According to direcfions of Raihyay Board, Uie dog, which is unfit for Police duty, is to be auctioned or donated to dog kwer. Chief Secuf^ Commissioner, RPF was apprised witt ttwse facts, who vide tetter dated 1-6-2006 directed to disposs of the dog by aucUon. Accordif^ly, aucUon sate notice was published. Subsequently, the proposed aucdon has been called rff dueto some admintetrafive reasons. PresenUy Uie ck^i M<tf is being toofced after with due care. There is no prow'sion for pensfon to the dogs. Raihway authwiUes are doing everythmg aaordii^ to &ie established procedure and noUiing inhuman has bewi done to dog MoUi PetitionN may be a ctog lover, b»Ano credwfels have been submltted by him. Pefitioner ctoes not have any tocus stan<£to institutB such a petiUon, neither he betongs to organizafion for care of animsris nor is in any way conneded to dog Mofi. The petitioner has fited the present petifion only with an intention to harass Railway admini^raUon wtthout enquiring fnto the factual legal posifion. 5) Durirs the course of su-guments, it was brought to tt notree of thte Court that College of Veterinary Science & Aninal Husbandry, Anjora, SSBBEB Durg, ceiffled that they will be pleased to mairtain tha dog, if it is ctonated tothem. TheColtegehasallthetacilitiesformairtainhigL.S.species. On receiving certiffcation, the RPF di^osed of ths Dog Mdi by donaUr^ it to Dean, College of Veterinary Sciwce & Animal Husbandfy, Anjora, Durg, who received and accepted to maintain tha dog. 6) Leamed counsel for the peUttoner telying upon the dedsion of the Hon'bte Apex Court rendered in fte matter of State of Gujarat vs. Wlirzapur MoU Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others contonded that dog Moti, whteh rendered tts valuabte services to RPF, though dectared unfit for Police duty is entitted Tor all faciBUes which were eariier avaitabte when dog "MoU" was fit for rendering servtees to the Department In consonance wth Article 51A(g) of ths C<mstitutfon of hidia. ^Ucle 51A<g) of <he ConsUtut'ion of India reads as below: (8) to prrtect and improve the redural environment including forests, lakes, rivars and wild life, and to have compassion fw living creahires. 7) Admittedly peBUoner is a uroon teader occupying the seat of General Secrstaiy, South Eaetem Central Raihivay Men's Union, Bilaspur, there is ndhh^ to show that he is an animal tover or in any way hs is related to welfar®of dogs or is relsrted wWh the dog Mrti. Fundamental duties are not enforceabte, but if the State seeks to promote any <rf the duUes by enactment or othenmse its consUtutfonality can be reviewed by the Court having regard to the directive Bnroj^es as weU as fundamental duties. 1 2005 AIRSCW 5723 y^ 8) Here in the instant case pdfttoner without disclosing smy serious material to show how non compassion for IMng creafaffes have besn ctone by the RPF, has faTsUtutBd this petition only w the ground at RPF has planned to donate the dog M<rti to dog tovers. 9) Govemment of India, Mini^ry of Raihnays vide letter No^VSw (CryDisbtn/62 New Delhi, dated 24-8-1^3 issued the fdtowing direcUons: "In supersession of eariier instructfon issued under this office letter No.71®ec(E)/ 125/6 dated 20-10-71, it has been decided ttiat whenever the otd ctogs of the dog squad of zonal Raihsays are to be considered for rrtirement from Ihe Railways Services on fte advfee of ttie Vet. Suigeon or otherwise, the CSOs should make specific recommendatiwi to the Board's office for their disposal instead of giving to them to dog loving persons free of cwt or puffing them to etemal sleep by giwig painless injecUon ttirough the Vet Suigeon. Their disposal, thus be underiaken onty on fte advice of ttie Board's Offtee." 10) In 1995, the Senior Security Commisstoner vide Idter No.94/Sec/ AES/DS/3/1 dated 6-&-95 issued the foltowing instructfons: "Various raihwa^ ar®asking DG's ofRce for promoBon/clearanc® for further action whenever ctogs are declared unfit for Potice duties due to con-genNat defecte, tenninal dis^ses, severe injury and other reasons. It is clarified that whenever a dog becomes unfit for potice duBes, the dog may be auctioned/ donated to dog tovera se per extant instructions by the CSC's wiUiout waifing for any (Urther in^rucBons ctearanced from thfe office. Where the dog is suffiering from terminal disease/severe injuiy ete. and tha vetannary docfew is of ttie opinion that medical treErtment wiB not be make the dog serwceabte, Uie dogs may be put to deep without seeUnglwaWng fw ctearance/permisskm from <his office. An eariy acUon will reduce the sufferina <^ <a~- undergone by the dogs. This ofllce may be advised only <rf the acfion taken." 11) The vifes of instructions regarding disposal of okl dogs <rf RPF issued by the Govemment of India and Senfor Security Commissioner are not in chattonge, therefore, RPF is bound to obey those in^ructhms and accordingly if they (rianned to donate the dog Ma6 to ck^ \wms that was not against the insfructions of ttie Govwnment. Even ottierwtee, tf a dog is donated to dog tover, twm tt can be assumed that it is viotative of fundamentat duties. If a ckag tover accepte a dog to keep and maintain a properly, that itself shows and establishes that fandamental duty "compassfon for living crratures" has been adhsred to. 12) Dog - Mrti has been given to Coltege of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg, a Govemment Insfltutkxi, they have all fiKaiitiss for maintaining sudi dogs and there is no material to show that the InstituUon is treating the dog with any crueUy or in non compassion manner. 13) From the materiat on record, it fe as crystal as ctoar that <Sog Moti remained unfit for Polfce duty and till ttio dog Moti was gwBn to Coltefl®of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg, the dog was provhted all the fereiliti^ and amenBies as per nonns by the RPF. Even ttier®was a Kennd of dog Moti in RPF Compleac, Budhwari Bazar, Bilaspur and handler & support hwidler have been provided to take care of the dog. An amount of Rs.1775/- was being itflized by the In-chaige of the dog squad forfood, grooming, meditKil freatment ate,, on ttie 6<3Q MoU. Now ttie dog is in custody of a Govemment InsBhite, whfch is acquaunted with th®maintenance of such dog. There is rN^img to^steaK-ftal— c^) Gowri Vetorinary CoU^, wtwh took fte dog in tts custody, is in any way behaving with the dog "MoU" in non-compassion manner. 14) Neittwr Govemmert cf IncRa has made any proviskin for pension nor for keeping all those dogs whteh are unfit for duty in ttwir custody Bl ttieir de^i. In absence <rf those prowsions, ftuidamental duty "compireston for fiving creatures" does not loose its sanctity, tHI it is established thal dog 'fs bang freated with cruelty or in non-compsssion manner. Th®Courts are n<rt reciuired to interfere in acfion taken by th® authorifies whfch they took keeping in view the larger interest of peoplefeociety, without causing hurtto fundamental duties. 15) In Ihe result, 1 am of the opinion ttat neither the peUUonw has any focus stancff to in^Bute ttie in^art writ pefitkm ra>r there is any material to establish that RPF has no compassion for Hs Dog - "MsW, therefore, tte instant writ pedtion deseives to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Nocosts. i i ! Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava ' Judge