26 August,2021 01:45 PM IST | Mumbai | PTI
Photo used for representational purpose. Pic/iStock
Taking note of the countless pet shops operating illegally in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on Thursday asked the state government to provide details about how many shops actually had valid permits.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G S Kulkarni was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Shivraj Patne seeking action against illegal pet shops.
Patne's counsel Sanjukta Dey said that despite the High Court's 2019 order, directing immediate closure of illegal pet shops, countless establishments continued to operate without necessary permissions.
The petitioner's counsel further stated that she herself had visited illegal pet shops in Crawford Market and Kurla areas of the city.
ALSO READ
Maharashtra: Wrongly cuffed police officer gets Rs 2 lakh from court
Sheena Bora case: Indrani Mukerjea moves SC, seeks permission to travel abroad
Bombay High Court mandates linking with local bodies for buyer protection
BMW hit - and - run: HC refuses to release accused on illegal arrest plea
Badlapur encounter: High court flays police for not reconstructing crime scene
"These shops are selling prohibited species of exotic birds and puppies," Dey said.
Also Read: International Cat Day: These online platforms are essential for cat owners
Despite provisions contained in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, most pet shops running in the state have not applied for licenses to operate, the lawyer argued.
The bench noted that during the previous hearings in 2019, the State Animal Welfare Board had told the High Court that under the provisions of the above Act, pet shop owners need to present an application before the board to get their establishments registered, and on satisfaction, a certificate of registration was issued.
The High Court noted that the plea raised a "serious issue", and directed the Board to inform it about the number of pet shops that were registered and were operating as per rules.
The court also directed the petitioner to implead the state animal welfare board as a party in the plea and adjourned further hearing to August 30.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.