In a significant ruling upholding animal welfare rights and residents’ freedoms, the Bombay High Court has directed the administrator of RNA Royale Park Cooperative Housing Society, located in suburban Mumbai, to immediately relieve two “bouncers” hired to prevent stray dogs from being fed at designated spots on the premises.
The order, passed by a division bench comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Arif Doctor, came in response to a contempt plea filed by resident Paromita Puthran, who alleged the society was acting in violation of previous court directions.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute traces back to earlier orders passed by the Bombay High Court on March 27, March 28, and April 24, 2023, which expressly prohibited the housing society and its office-bearers from engaging security personnel or “bouncers” to prevent residents from feeding stray dogs at designated spots.
However, Puthran, represented by advocates Gauraj Shah and Samaa Shah, alleged that despite these clear directions, the society appointed two women as special security personnel in December 2024, effectively acting as bouncers to obstruct feeding activities.
In her contempt plea, Puthran submitted photographs as evidence, highlighting the continued presence and interference of these security personnel.
“Pursuant to orders dated March 27, 2023, March 28, 2023, and April 24, 2023, it was incumbent upon the society and its office-bearers not to employ bouncers, as per the undertaking given before the court, as well as in compliance with the orders passed by the court,” Puthran’s petition stated.
High Court’s Directions
The High Court, in its order recently made available, directed:
-
Immediate removal of the two “bouncers.”
-
The retention of water bowls provided for the stray dogs, which the society agreed not to remove.
The court also emphasized the need for a collaborative mechanism to resolve disputes related to stray dog feeding within the society. It ordered the housing society’s administrator to form a committee of five members, comprising:
-
Petitioner Paromita Puthran
-
Two dog lovers
-
Two other members of the housing society
The committee will be tasked with adopting appropriate measures to address issues around the feeding and welfare of stray dogs.
Society’s Response
The housing society, represented by advocates Rahul Sarda and Prabhu, informed the court that it would not engage bouncers in the future, and agreed to comply with the High Court’s directions.
The court noted that, given the society’s fair stand and its willingness to comply, it was “inclined not to pass any further orders in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction” against the society or its office-bearers.
Changing Stray Dog Population
The court also noted that at the time of its earlier orders in 2023, there were 18 stray dogs having territorial affinity to the housing society premises. That number has now reduced to 15 dogs.
Broader Implications
This case highlights the ongoing friction in urban residential communities between those seeking to care for stray animals and housing societies concerned about hygiene, security, and resident safety. The High Court’s ruling reinforces:
-
Residents’ right to feed stray animals at designated areas, consistent with animal welfare laws.
-
The importance of cooperative conflict resolution within housing societies.
-
Judicial intolerance for contempt of court orders, especially where fundamental duties under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution—to show compassion to living creatures—are involved.
The decision serves as a reminder that housing societies cannot impose blanket bans or employ force to obstruct lawful feeding of stray animals, especially when prior judicial directions exist.
