A TWIST IN THE TAIL
Duo from Pashan transfer the courtroom in opposition to forest dept’s diktat from earlier this yr, dispute part 9 of Maharashtra Forest Guidelines on which ban is allegedly based mostly, calling it one-sided and discriminatory
Practically two months after four-pawed, furry members of the family of many households in Pune had been banned from town’s scant inexperienced lungs, there’s a problem in retailer in opposition to this diktat of the authorities.
Now, two pet-loving households from the Panchavati space have filed a writ petition within the Bombay Excessive Courtroom (HC), difficult the forest division’s determination to outlaw individuals from bringing their pet canine onto town’s in style hills and tekdis — a choice that had been met with a lot shock and outrage in January this yr.
The 2 petitioners, Pashan residents Sharmila Karve and Pallavi Kulkarni, are amongst a whole bunch of animal lovers who oppose the state forest division’s transfer to not enable entry of pet canine (even when they’re on the leash) atop hills based mostly on part 9 of the Maharashtra Forest Guidelines.
After the duo filed its writ petition within the HC on February 4, the division bench of Justice SJ Kathawala and Justice Milind N Jadhav on Monday requested the forest division to file its reply inside one week.
The division bench additionally acknowledged that Pune Municipal Company (PMC) be allowed to hitch as a respondent within the writ, and the company officer involved has been directed to stay current earlier than the courtroom on the subsequent listening to.
Talking about their plea difficult the forest division’s determination, advocate Ajinkya Udane, representing Karve and Kulkarni, mentioned, “By this writ petition, we’re difficult part 9 of the state forest guidelines with the assistance of which the forest division has issued this declaration, stating that domesticated animals won’t be allowed on the hills. Solely as a result of there’s some uncommon case of a canine chew at some location, the forest division has issued a blanket ban on all domesticated animals — we oppose this. We wish this order to be put aside. Pet lovers ought to be allowed to take their pets on totally different hills of town. Due to this fact, we filed the writ within the HC.”
Bolstering their demand, the petitioners have claimed that there are already not too many locations within the concrete jungle the place pets will be taken for his or her much-needed each day walks. Now, with such orders from the forest division, pets might be additional disadvantaged of their pure environment.
Kulkarni, one of many petitioners, mentioned, “We’re completely high quality if we’re all made to make use of a leash compulsorily whereas taking our pets to the hills, however we’re in opposition to any blanket ban on their entry! Already, there are sometimes illegal restrictions on roads, in societies, in gardens, and different premises of town. When pets are taken to the hills, they’re near their pure environment and likewise get good train.”
Additional, the petitioners additionally took objection to the forest division’s claims that pets are harming wildlife on the hills. “It has been a number of years since we’re taking our pets on the hills. In spite of everything these ensuing years, we hold sighting peacocks and different birds and animals on the tekdis. Now if pets had been inflicting hurt to such wildlife, would they not have disappeared after so lengthy?” Kulkarni requested.
The petitioners additionally agreed that pets should be in charge of their walkers, particularly in case they occur to have aggression points, or will not be absolutely educated. “We do perceive that some pets are much less educated, and undoubtedly should be leashed correctly. If any particular person fails to manage their pet, that particular person ought to face motion — however solely due to such individuals, why ought to the forest division deprive everybody else of getting their pets on the hills?” asserted Kulkarni.
When contacted on the identical, deputy conservator of forests (Pune area) Rahul Patil was defensive of the blanket ban, and mentioned, “We’re going by the regulation. There’s a rule in place and we’re solely imposing it. There was a requirement from some individuals to implement the rule and so, we needed to do it. There’s nothing illegal within the order issued by our division.”
Let’s block adverts! (Why?)