The Punjab and Haryana High Court Stayed the consumer court’s order on confiscation of pet dogs belonging to 11 banned breeds and to take into custody all stray dogs and put them in pounds.
The petition raised a challenge to the interim order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, titled as ‘Munni Vs. Neetu Chikkara and another’ wherein in a complaint filed by the respondents complainant, she had claimed monetary assistance of Rs.10 lakhs to fulfill her basic necessities including basic expenses as well as diet and other misc. expenses on an allegation that she was bit when O.P. had unleashed her dog in the locality of Civil Lines. She suffered multiple deep wounds and multiple injuries on different parts of the body including the head.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner intends to buy one more dog and that by virtue of the aforesaid orders, she is being restrained from purchasing and keeping another dog, thus, she has a cause of action to pursue the present petition.
He further contended that the order in question has been passed without authority and jurisdiction and in a manner as is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The single judge bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj stayed the operation of the interim order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram till further orders.
The court said that taking into consideration, the data noticed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, that as many as 77 lacs of dog bite cases are reported throughout India on everyday basis resulting in 20,000 deaths per year. It has also been reported on the basis of internet that nearly 40% such cases relate to children which is definitely an alarming situation and needs to be properly redressed, it has required to take cognizance of the case on the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
It was ordered by the court that the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, shall file an affidavit of an officer not below the rank of Commissioner regarding the remaining directions issued in the said order.
Case title: Shivani Dasmahapatra v/s State of Haryana and Others