ALPHONSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, I would say, rightly believes in the sententious adage that courts are open to every citizen who comes and complains that law is being broken. Certainly so long as he has a genuine case for consideration we will hear it. I have no doubt that no one shall forbid him access. He is not to be turned away on the question of locus standi.

(2.) I certainly believe it as a matter of high constitutional principle that if there is a ground for supposing that a government department or public authority declines to enforce law and that offends or injures thousands of citizens then any of those offended or injured can draw to the attention of this court and seek to have the law enforced and this court in its discretion can grant whatever remedy is appropriate. To my mind, it is clear on principle that once a public duty exists in statute, there should be a means of enforcing it. In our constitutional set up a public duty mandated by a statute can be enforced, I think by the high prerogative writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which has always been available against public officers to see that they do their public duty as ordained by the statute. This remedy is available against government departments or any person or body set up by statutory authority affecting the rights of individuals. We live in an age when legislature Central and State has very often placed statutory obligations and duties important and essential on government departments and public functionaries certainly for the benefit of the public but quite often provided no remedy in the statute in the hands of the public for the breach of them. The question is whether can a member of the public come to the court and draw the breach of such a public duty to its attention ? I feel absolutely no difficulty to answer this query. My answer is an emphatic Yes. This position is well forted by supreme Court decisions. Certainly the party who wants mandamus must show that he has sufficient interest to be protected.

(3.) I am sure that the government will not spare any effort to enforce the law relating to prevention of straying of dogs and animals in public places and streets tenaciously and effectively even without a writ of mandamus issued from this court. I hope that the government will bring down to nil the incidence of canine rabies by adopting an action plan, positive and productive to combat that alarming increase of rabies deaths spoken to by the petitioner. This Court feels certain that government will not hesitate to take immediate steps for immunising domestic pets and an effective programme of vaccination of all dogs and the total extermination of stray dogs through humane means of elimination.