Delhi High Court: A batch of petitions were filed challenging the circular dated 12-03-2024, issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (respondent 1) prohibiting import, breeding and selling of twenty-four dog breeds. A division bench of Manmohan, ACJ and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., set aside the circular dated 12-03-2024, which prohibited the import, breeding, and selling of certain dog breeds directing procedural fairness in the form of inviting objections, ensuring examination of objections before any final decision, and maintaining the independence of its decision from that of the Karnataka High Court.
The case arises from a circular dated 12-03-2024, issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, which prohibited the import, breeding, and selling of twenty-four specified dog breeds. The petitioners challenged this circular through a batch of writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners contended that the circular was illegal and perverse, alleging that it was passed without providing due opportunity to stakeholders, contrary to an undertaking given to the court in a previous order dated 06-12-2023. Moreover, they highlighted that the Karnataka High Court had already quashed the impugned circular in Writ Petition No. 8409 of 2024 (GM – RES) on 10-04-2024, adding weight to their argument.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the circular violated the undertaking given to the court, which promised stakeholders due opportunity before passing any order prohibiting the import, breeding, and selling of certain dog breeds. They further pointed out that the Karnataka High Court had already ruled against the circular and that certain directions within it were based on repealed rules. Counsel for the Union of India admitted that apart from governmental bodies, no private entities were consulted before issuing the circular. However, he expressed no objection to setting aside the circular with a directive to issue a fresh circular or notification after providing an opportunity for all stakeholders to raise objections.
The Delhi High Court took note of the submissions from both sides. It observed that the impugned circular had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court and acknowledged the admission by counsel for the Union of India regarding the lack of consultation with private bodies. Considering the statement made by the counsel for the Union of India and the need to ensure procedural fairness, the court decided to set aside the circular. However, recognizing the practical difficulties in providing oral hearings to every dog owner, the Court directed the respondents to issue a public notice in a national newspaper and on their official website, inviting written objections to any proposed notifications or amendments within two weeks.
The Court further mandated that objections received in response to the notice would be examined and decided upon before issuing any final notification. Importantly, the Court clarified that its decision did not comment on or interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, leaving the rights and contentions of the parties open for further consideration.
The Court held that the impugned circular dated 12-03-2024, was set aside and directed the respondents to issue a public notice inviting objections to any proposed notifications or amendments, ensuring procedural fairness. The court emphasized that its decision did not affect the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and left the rights and contentions of the parties open for future adjudication.
[Sikander Singh Thakur v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2803, decided on 16-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Nikhil Palli, Mr. Kshitij Pal and Mr. Arinjay Singh, Advocates for petitioner
Ms. Prtha Srikumar, Ms. Anusha Murti, Mr. Atharv Gupta, Advs. for Intervenor/ PETA
