The Kerala High Court has mandated the Eruvessy grama panchayat to pay ₹10,000 to a victim of a stray dog attack dating back to 2007. The court found the local body negligent in fulfilling its legal obligations regarding the management of stray dogs,leading to the incident.
In a ruling delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, the court highlighted panchayat's failure to capture and sterilize stray dogs as required by law. This negligence was deemed direct cause of the attack on the victim,identified as Tankappan from Kannur.
The Munsiff Court in Thaliparamba had previously determined that the attack occurred within the panchayat's jurisdiction and criticized local body for its lack of action. The court noted that panchayat had not taken necessary steps to control stray dog population,including enforcing licensing for pet dogs, during period leading up to the attack .
Despite the panchayat's appeal to the High Court,which claimed it had acted within its limits and was not responsible for the attack, the judges found no evidence supporting its assertions. The panchayat argued that Tankappan might have been bitten by a stray dog outside its jurisdiction and insisted that it had not received state funding to manage stray dog issue .
Moreover, the panchayat raised concerns that awarding compensation could lead to a surge in litigation,potentially disrupting its regular functions. It contended that the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, enacted in 1960,superseded local government laws,thus complicating its responsibilities regarding stray dogs.
Tankappan countered these claims, asserting that panchayat had clear duty to manage stray dogs. He maintained that the local body could not evade responsibility once it was established that it had failed to take appropriate action.
The court underscored that every village panchayat is mandated to issue licenses for domestic dogs and manage the stray dog population in accordance with Birth Control Rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The judges pointed out that the panchayat had not demonstrated that it had formed a Monitoring Committee or conducted sterilization programs for stray dogs at any time.
Furthermore,the court noted that there was no evidence of any assessments made by the panchayat to determine the necessity of such measures. judges emphasized that the local body could not claim immunity from liability simply because it had not received specific complaints regarding stray dogs.
This ruling serves as a reminder of responsibilities local governments hold in ensuring public safety and animal control. The court's decision reinforces expectation that panchayats must actively engage in managing stray animal populations to protect their communities.
