LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

R.R. KRISHNAA (Legal Manager)     30 December 2009




CHENNAI:  Justice Tamilvanan of Madras High Court has ruled that it is not permissible to grow pets (particularly dogs with barking nature) in a housing locality.  For having pets appropriate permission from the municipality board of the respective district ought to have been obtained. 


Facts of the case:  One Mr. Vikram had 30 dogs in house (for sale purposes) in a residential area in circuit house road, Coimbatore.  The dogs daily bark and howl in residential area.  This causes nuisance for the neighbours and annoyed neighbours decided to take action and through one Dr. Jayavarthavavelu made a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the RDO after enquiry passed order directing Vikram to remove the dogs causing nuisance.  Vikram challenged the said order of RDO before the High Court Madras and argued that dogs are pet animals and growing pet animals cannot be called nuisance and the order of RDO is illegal. 


Justice Tamilvanan held that the rules for having pets have not been followed in the case and due to the pets there has been chances of spreading of disease as the smell emulating from the bodies of the pets cause incurable diseases in the people of residential area.  Moreover it would be a nuisance for the public living in residential area to hear the barking and howling sound often.  Hence Justice Tamilvanan confirmed the order of the RDO and the case filed by vikram was dismissed.  It was clearly ruled that dogs and other pet animals have to be grown in the locality only after obtaining proper written permission from the municipality board (as per the laws of Municipal Corporation) otherwise it is illegal.


Source:  DINAMALAR (Tamil Online daily)


Date: 30.12.2009







 14 Replies

R.R. KRISHNAA (Legal Manager)     30 December 2009

Dismissing the criminal revision petition from Vikram of Coimbatore, Justice S Tamilvanan observed that barking and howling of dogs and the foul odour they carry could be construed as public nuisance.


Vikram had preferred the revison petition as he was restrained from breeding dogs in his house by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, vide an order passed on November 27, following complaints from neighbours.


“It was not in dispute that unbearable noise or foul smell can be an annoyance and hence a public nuisance,” the judge said, adding that keeping dogs in a residential area spreads a foul smell that is injurious to public health.


Justice Tamilvanan said it was well settled that the sub-divisional magistrate or any executive magistrate was empowered, under Sec 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to take action to remove nuisance.


In this case, it had been clearly established that the petitioner was keeping a large number of dogs without obtaining licence for a commercial venture. He was also causing noise pollution and creating hazarduous atmosphere in the residential area, the judge observed.


N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     30 December 2009

With due respect to Justice Tamilvanan, here one man's food is another man's poison. In Nagaland, we never regard Dogs as disease rather it is exquisite cuisine for us. Wish we were there to make a feast of it. Missing those dogs.

Kiran Kumar (Lawyer)     30 December 2009

i think the High Court decided correctly.


30 dogs in a single house in a residential area...they will just create nuisance....it should not be called house but a DOG-ZOO


Exquisite Cuisine for Assumi Sir :-o)

dog roasted, dog fry, dog curry, dog tikka, dog malai tikka, dog soup, dog-do-pyaza, dog honey, dog masala and many more :D



N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     30 December 2009

Dear Kiran, you have said it. I just want to say that justice Tmilvanan, was not that harsh to Dogs: as the principles of  a man's food is poison for others squarely falls in the case, thats all.Wish we were there to solved the nusiance in Coimbitore in silence.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     30 December 2009

This is a good decision in consonance with recent SCI decision in a similar matter.

Kiran Kumar (Lawyer)     31 December 2009

Assumi Sir, i just took it all on lighter side, nothing offensive otherwise.


i can understand the your thought.


in fact we are a multicultural society so a lot of differnece in our habits and living style etc.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     31 December 2009

Yes agreed Kiran, and I have also  taken that way that is laughter side of life. Nice to hear from you and inter act: Happy New Year.


I agree with Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision. Yes. For commerical purpose Pets owner have to take prior permission from Municipal Authority and Health authority. Even registration of a domestic dog with municipal authority also essential.

V.Senguttuvan (Advocate / Mediator & Concilator)     13 January 2010

 We have right to extent our hands till it does not touch the nose of the others. Like that one can have pets. But 30 dags that too in a residential area certainily will create nusience to others

girishankar (manager)     14 January 2010

Please let me know if a Doctor owning a Nursing home , a old age home, or a HIV affeted peoples home  next door of ours will this will treated as nuisance..../. Let Menaka Ghandhi take this matter in her hands and lets see whts up...

Feroz M Shafeeque (Police Officer)     14 January 2010

What type of nuisance is expected from the above listed institutes?

girishankar (manager)     14 January 2010

 as the principles of  a man's food is poison for others squarely falls in the case, thats all.Wish we were there to solved the nusiance in Coimbitore in silence.

ghansham das (self employed engineer)     19 January 2010

if a DOG CAN UNDERSTAND THE  men's languages pls.

if it bites?

if number iof times/ occassions bites,then?

if corporations / Municiapl dpet gives permissons/then?

 against all neighboring rresidents/then


A compalint single is sufficient to drive out the pets/ no pet is your right or else go to zoo, live with these,,,,

a funny time pass against the rt  judgments?


krishtinewinget   25 December 2020

"Dry food is accepted to be better for a canine's teeth. Wet food gives more dampness, which is particularly useful for those canines that don't drink a ton of water," Klein says. https://feedpetfood.com/my-dog-ate-chicken-bones-what-can-i-do-right-now/ As per the AKC, pups a half year and more youthful ought to eat three to four times each day. At a half year, they can eat twice day by day. When puppies become grown-ups, they can get a couple of suppers daily, contingent upon how much exercise they get. The most ideal approach to understand what's ideal for your canine? Check with your vet.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register