Man's plea for release of his pet dogs dismissed

A city resident has been denied by a Delhi court the custody of his pets - half a dozen of dogs in all, seized by an animal welfare centre on the ground that they were suffering from various ailments and were not fit to travel back home.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Ramesh Kumar turned down Model Town resident Amarpreet Singh's plea to release his dogs, dismissing his appeal against a magisterial court order which had upheld the seizure of the dogs by Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre.

The sessions court said the dogs were not fit to travel due to reasons ranging from pregnancy to stress.

"One dog was having pregnancy and high temperature, two dogs with infection like vomiting and loose motion and other dogs were also having problems like stress, dehydration and temperature and also respiratory distress.

"As per Rule 5 of the Transport of Animals Rules, no dog in advance stage of pregnancy shall be transported. Hence, no case for release of the dogs was made out," ASJ Kumar said.

Singh's six pets had been taken away by the animal welfare centre at Raja Garden in West Delhi with the help of police on June 18 on the alleged ground that he treated them cruelly.

After seizure of the canine animals, Singh had approached a magisterial court for their release and his plea was even allowed, but neither the animal welfare centre nor police allegedly complied with the court order.

At this, he moved a magisterial court against the animal welfare centre and the police seeking launch of contempt of court plea against them for not complying with the earlier order.

But the magisterial court dismissed his plea saying he had not brought to the court's notice earlier the facts about ailments suffered by dogs.

As Singh approached the sessions court against the second magisterial court's order, it too said he had not placed on record the mandatory "valid health certificate by qualified veterinary surgeon for the purpose of travelling of the dogs".

"As the said order (of trial court) was obtained by suppressing the material facts regarding the health of the dogs, the revisionist (Singh) is not entitled to the relief as claimed.

"No contempt is made out, in the present case, since the dogs in question were physically unfit as they were suffering from multiple problems," it said.