RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION, GURUGRAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fetching grievance from the letter/communication dtd. 19/5/2025, (Annexure P-8) issued by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Badhsahpur, Gurugram (respondent No.2), who is the Chairman of the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, which embodied directions to the Chief Medical Officer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, for shifting back the stray dogs to Taksila Heights (Society where members of the petitioner-Association reside), after vaccination/sterilization, the place from where they were captured, the petitioner-Resident Welfare Association of the Society, has filed the instant petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the letter/communication (supra)

(2.) The directions (supra), are mainly challenged on the ground that the same have been issued, without any jurisdiction, and without complying with the requisite conditions, as encapsulated in Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules of 2023'). As much as, the directions (supra), have been passed in contravention of the Haryana Municipal (Registration and Proper Control of Dogs) Bye-laws, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Bye-laws of 2005'), which, according to the petitioner-Association, ought to have been adhered to in letter and spirit by the authorities concerned, before issuing the directions (supra).

(3.) Before embarking upon the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apposite to make a compendious study of the factual background of the case at hand, which led the authorities concerned to draw the impugned letter/communication.