CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No

WP No. 44107 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No. 44107 of 2025andWMP No. 49221 of 20251. People For Cattle In India (pfci)Rep. By Its Founder G.Arun Prasanna, No.8/22, Ragaviah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The CommissionerGreater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.2.Animal Welfare Board Of India,National Institute Of Animal Welfare Campus, P.O.42 Km Stone, Delhi-agra Highway, Nh-2, Village-seekri, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana-121 004 IndiaRespondent(s)PRAYERcalling for the records relating to the note Pothu Ka.Na.Ma. No.A2/0762/ 2025 dated 14.10.2025 of the 1st respondent and quashing it insofar as it prescribes a cut-off date of 24.11.2025 for obtaining licenses, prescribing penal action against non-compliant owners, artificially restricting ownership to only 4 animals and compelling muzzling of pets in public spaces and consequently direct the 1st respondent (i) to provide a reasonable and extended compliance window following the stabilization of the licensing portal (ii) to clarify the applicability of licensing obligations and penalties to animal welfare 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 2025organizations, fosterers, rescuers and NGOs engaged in temporary or transitional care of animals (iii) to frame humane, proportionate, and evidence-based regulations consistent with the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent (AWBI) and the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (vi) to issue appropriate directions providing for interim custody and legal recognition of fostered or abandoned pets pending adoption or rehabilitationFor Petitioner(s):M/s.B.Prashanth NadarajR.Kavya LakshmiFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.Arun Babu For R1Mr.V.Chandrasekaran For R2ORDERThe petitioner is an NGO claiming to take care of stray dogs in the city of Chennai. It also indulges in rescuing cattles, cats, horses, etc. It claims that it regularly interacts with the Tamil Nadu Police, among others, during the course of its rescues and other activities. 2. The cause of action for the present writ petition is the notification issued in terms of Section 105 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, read with Rule 292 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules of 2023. Under Rule 292 of the Rules, a mandatory licensing procedure has been introduced for animals and birds. The present writ petition relates to the licensing of canines. 3. The petitioner alleges that while licensing is permissible, impossible targets have been fixed by the respondents. The cut-off date 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 2025has been fixed as 24.11.2025 for the purpose of obtaining a license and in default, a penalty of Rs.5,000/- is contemplated. The impugned order also directs that Rs.500/- as fine will be imposed on owners of the pets, who do not leash the animals in public areas. Hence, challenging the notification, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 14.11.2025, Mr.Arunbabu took notice for 1st respondent, Mr.V.Chandrasekar took notice for 2nd respondent. As the regulations have been notified by the 1st respondent, I called upon Mr.Arunbabu to address the following issues:- (1) whether muzzling of dogs is mandatory for all breeds or whether it is confined to certain breeds?(2) Whether the last date for licensing of animals fixed as 24.11.2025 is inflexible or would be extended? 5. Mr.Arunbabu submitted that he would get instructions from the 1st respondent and sought the matter to be listed today. 6. Today I heard Mr.Prashanth for the petitioner and Mr.Arunbabu for the 1st respondent and Mr.V.Chandrasekar for the 2nd respondent.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 20257. Mr.Arunbabu is assisted by Dr.Kamal Hussain, Chief Veterinary Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation. 8. Mr.Arunbabu states (1) that muzzling of dogs is not mandatory and the Corporation would not take any penal or coercive action against a person for not muzzling any dogs;(2) On leashing of animals, while being taken into public areas, it is mandatory, since it is meant for protection of the general public;(3) the Corporation expects 100,000 pets to be registered. As on today, 82,000 pets have been registered by their pet parents and digitalization process with respect to them has been completed;(4) Insertion of the micro-chip in the animal is only a one-time measure and will not be insisted year on year;(5) as on today 35,340 pets have been vaccinated and certified;(6) the date for registration is not inflexible. The Corporation, taking into consideration the circumstances that prevail as on today, has extended the time till 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 2025December 7th 2025.9. On instructions, Mr.Arunbabu adds that in case the pet parent is not in a position to register the animal by then, the Corporation will always take a call whether to extend the time so fixed depending upon the circumstances.10. On the grievance of the petitioner that in case of adopted animal too registration is necessary, Mr.Arunbabu points out that the purpose of registration is to know the person, who has the custody of the animal. The policy decision taken by the Corporation is to register the animal, even when it is under temporary custody, prior to its adoption. Once adopted, he states that the Corporation has evolved a procedure by which the transfer of the pet can be registered on the website of the Greater Chennai Corporation and no charge will be levied for such transfer. 11. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that restriction of 4 pets have been imposed on any person, who wants to procure a license, and that the Indian mongrel breed does not have any provision for registration.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 202512. On these two aspects, Mr.Arunbabu states that perhaps at the time, when the website was launched, there could have been bottleneck for registration of more than 4 pets. However, the said aspect has been addressed and as on today, there is no bar for a person to register more than four pets, irrespective of species, to which they belong. 13. On the aspect of Indian mongrel not being capable of being registered, Mr.Arunbabu states that the website has a category of ‘others’ and an animal, which does not correspond to the breeds mentioned, can be registered under the said category. 14. The submissions of Mr.Arunbabu are recorded. It has addressed the issues that have been faced by pet owners and pointed out by the petitioner. 15. Dr.Kamal Hussain, who is present in Court and instructing Mr.Arunbabu, states in case the petitioner or any other persons face any issues with respect to licensing or over crowding at the registration centers, they are free to approach him with their grievances and call will be taken on the issues so placed, by him.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 202516. The request of Mr.Prashanth that the statement made by the Mr.Arunbabu to the Court may be released as a notification or as a press release by the Chief Veterinary Officer, is welcomed by the Corporation.17. Mr.Arunbabu says that necessary clarification would be issued in this regard within a period of one week from today(25.11.2025).18. As the statement such of Mr.Arunbabu addresses the grievances raised by the petitioner, it would suffice to record the same and dispose of the writ petition.25-11-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoMaya7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 44107 of 2025V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.MayaTo1.The CommissionerGreater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.2.Anima Welfare Board Of India,National Institute Of Animal Welfare Campus, P.O.42 Km Stone, Delhi-agra Highway, Nh-2, Village-seekri, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana-121 004 IndiaWP No. 44107 of 2025 Dated : 25-11-20258/8