The Bombay High Court Wednesday constituted a committee of experts to examine the correctness of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision to close ‘kabootarkhanas’ (pigeon feeding areas) in the city and to ascertain the impact on larger public health.
A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing pleas by animal rights activists and Trustees of Dadar Kabootarkhana Trust against the BMC’s crackdown based on the state’s directive, citing serious health hazards due to pigeon droppings and feathers.
The BMC submitted before the HC that it intended to allow controlled feeding for two hours at Dadar Kabootarkhana based on the Trust’s application. However, the court asked the civic body to first issue public notice and invite objections on applications made by petitioners as the same cannot be decided without considering the “fate of the public at large”.
On August 7, the bench indicated formation of an expert panel to examine the BMC’s decision “to balance the interest of the large population” and to resolve the issue.
In the event the expert committee upholds the BMC’s closure, the bench had said, “such opinion needs to prevail in the larger public health of the citizens” and “required to be respected” with neither the state nor the BMC to take a contrary position.
The HC had also permitted petitioners to make applications to the BMC commissioner if they intended to feed pigeons and had asked the civic body to hear all stakeholders before passing an appropriate decision considering “larger issue of public health”. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the HC order.
On Wednesday, Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the state government gave a list of 11 members who can be part of the panel. It includes the executive health officer of the BMC; Dr Sujeet Rajan, pulmonologist of the Bombay Hospital; Dr Amita U Athavale, head of pulmonary medicine at civic-run KEM Hospital; officers of the Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board; directors of Public Health and Town Planning; experts in veterinary science and immunology; and the director of Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS).
Story continues below this ad
Govt ‘concerned about public health’
AG Saraf also said the state government is “concerned about public health” and conscious that the same “cannot be compromised”. The court ordered the formation of a panel and directed the committee to “make an endeavour to submit its report within a month of its first meeting.
The petitioners further informed the court about their applications to the BMC seeking feeding at kabootarkhanas.
Senior advocate Ram Apte for the BMC submitted that it has received an application by the Trust, and the civic body was inclined to permit controlled feeding with conditions for two hours between 6 am and 8 am by imposing strict conditions, including washing of the area after feeding, among others.
Justice Kulkarni orally told the BMC lawyer, “You have already covered the areas, so ensure feeding cannot be allowed on the road and the decision cannot be in the teeth of the court order. It is not that only petitioners are concerned. It is your (BMC) duty that when it is an issue of public interest, you have to issue notice and seek objections from the public at large. You have not issued public notice. Take appropriate steps. Once it is about public health interest, then it is not only about one person turning up and applying for feeding, but it also affects society at large including residents, passerby.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench also said, “You (BMC) have to take a duly considered decision considering public health and rights assured in the constitution. You should have issued notice and given the opportunity to people. You cannot decide the fate of the public at large without considering their objections. Invite objections, Put your email address on notice….You have to maintain sanctity of the public order.
The court directed the BMC commissioner to decide applications as per law after inviting objections from the public and hearing all stakeholders, and posted further hearing after four weeks.
The court also continued earlier interim orders passed by it, including no demolition of heritage kabootarkhanas and lodging of FIRs against people “illegally” and “defiantly” feeding pigeons at kabootarkhanas and to cover feeding areas. It had earlier refused to pass an interim order to allow the feeding of pigeons.
