PEOPLE FOR ANIMALS Vs. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been placed before me in pursuance of a letter written by the All India Animal Welfare Association to the learned Chief Justice on 17th June, 1996. The association has complained to the learned Chief Justice that inspite of the order passed by this Court dated 16th October, 1995, and the directions issued by the Bench of the Supreme Court, the concerned authorities have failed to prevent camel joy rides on the beaches in Mumbai. The association has also complained that there is blatant violation of the order passed by the Court by the camel owners. The association alongwith other institutions and individuals have filed a notice of motion praying for allowing them to intervene in the writ petition.

(2.) BEFORE considering the grievances made by the various associations and individuals, it will be necessary to state briefly the factual background of the case. The writ petition has been filed by a voluntary organisation "People for Animals" sometime in September, 1995. It is the case of the petitioners that for several years herds of camels have been and continue to be transported to Mumbai from the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat. These camels are brought into the city of Mumbai solely for the purpose of "entertainment" and "joy rides" for humans. It is further the case of the petitioners that the humid and saline climate of Mumbai has a detrimental effect on the health and survival of these camels. They develop respiratory disorders and skin diseases due to humidity. Their lungs are prone to be infected due to high level of humidity. It is also the case of the petitioners that camels are biologically adopted to walk on sand which is hot dry, whereas the sand in Mumbai is wet and cold due to which moisture and water seeps through the hooves of these camels. Consequently, the hooves get infected. It is also contended by the petitioners that since these camels are used for entertainment and joy rides, they are stepped with heavy metals and leather saddles on their backs which are invariably cheap, old and ill-fitted. Due to the weight of the saddles and added to that the weight of the customers, these camels get galls (sores). The sores are not treated by the camel owners and in order to hide the same from the eye of the public, the galls are covered with plastic materials which aggravates the galls. It is also contended by the petitioners that for the purposes of rides, metal rings to hold the reins are pierced into nostrils or "false nostrils" of these camels. This causes severe bleeding. The cartilages in the nostrils also get torn. The camel owners, who are more concerned about their own survival,leave the camels' wounds unattended and the wounds develop into full-fledged skin disease or serious injuries. It is also contended by the petitioners that the camels have also become victims of malnutrition as they are not properly fed. The malnutrition further aggravates their injuries and deteriorates their health severely. They are not provided any shelter. They are instead tied to wooden pegs near the beach or marshy swamps. During high tide these swamps get flooded with sea waters and the camels are compelled to stay overnight in such slushy areas. According to the petitioners, due to these cruelties, lack of care, malnutrition and Mumbai's hostile climate, these camels, in a short period, become physically incapable of sustaining rides. They become liability for their owners who then ruthlessly abandon these ailing camels to die on some remote beaches or streets of Mumbai. The petitioner have therefore prayed for prevention of entry of camels into the city of Mumbai and their user for the purpose of joy rides and entertainment or any other commercial purposes.

(3.) AFTER receipt of the report, Dhanuka, J. issued certain interim directions under order dated 16th October, 1995. In the said order the learned Judge recorded a positive finding that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer (d). The learned Judge then proceeded to observe in paragraph 5 as follows: