Notice to activist for seeking dog feeding spots at HC

Nagpur: Coming down heavily on animal rights activist Ankita Shah and civic body’s veterinary doctor Dr Gajendra Mahalle, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Wednesday issued show-cause notices asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
A division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Manohar Chandwani directed both to file a reply within a week. The judges directed that Dr Mahalle be made a party to the PIL in his personal capacity to be answerable for his conduct.
The bench was hearing a petition filed in 2006 by social worker Vijay Talewar on stray dog menace, which has been converted into PIL (no. 54/2022). Shah, herself a lawyer, has also filed an intervention through counsel Sundeep Badana and another one is filed by Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organization.
The judges pointed out that Shah had written a letter to Dr Mahalle, who is also deputy commissioner for solid waste management of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), wherein she asked him to authorise feeding of stray dogs on the HC’s premises. Shah mentioned that NMC should designate spots on HC campus for the purpose.
The activist also issued statements in the media narrating the contents of her letter. Accordingly, Dr Mahalle sent a letter to HC registrar requesting him to provide spots as per Shah’s letter.
“Our prima facie view is that both Shah and Dr Mahalle have acted in a contemptuous manner, and it is nothing less than a publicity stunt. The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act does not empower the civic body to designate a spot for feeding of stray dogs on court campus,” the judges orally said.
Adding that animal rights activists would demand similar feeding spots for strays at airports and other military installations, the judges said Shah issuing statements in the media amounts to obstruction of administration of justice.
Ashwin Deshpande, appearing for Dhantoli Nagrik Mandal, pointed out that Dr Mahalle is acting under the pressure and influence of such activists. Talewar’s lawyer Firdos Mirza said Shah writing the letter to Dr Mahalle and his subsequent letter to HC registrar was indeed a contempt of court.
NMC counsel Sudhir Puranik then agreed to contentions of both Deshpande and Mirza.
Earlier, the police filed their affidavit as per HC’s directives informing that the department had started action against stray dog menace. The judges also allowed an intervention filed by Godbole, who had challenged HC’s October 20 order in the Supreme Court and was told to approach HC for her contentions.
In the last hearing, Mirza had demanded that intervenors should deposit Rs10 lakh before filing their intervention in HC to prove bona fides. He had contended that providing food, shelter and care to stray dogs by NMC happens at the cost of taxpayers’ money. “If any NGO or any individual is interested in the welfare of stray dogs, they must come forward and show bona fides so that the issue can be resolved properly by balancing the interest of members of the public at large and the interest of dog lovers,” he had said.