[Monkey Menace] ‘Garbage Littering, Feeding Religious Offerings to Monkeys Created The Menace’, P&H HC Calls For Action-Taken Report From Authorities [Read Order]

first_imgNews Updates[Monkey Menace] ‘Garbage Littering, Feeding Religious Offerings to Monkeys Created The Menace’, P&H HC Calls For Action-Taken Report From Authorities [Read Order] Sparsh Upadhyay24 Sep 2020 9:26 AMShare This – xThe Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that the suggestion, to start killing and/or culling monkeys like vermin (in case of self-defence), on the face of it, is outrageous, cruel and preposterous.The Bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing the plea of one Divyam Dhakla who had approached the Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that the suggestion, to start killing and/or culling monkeys like vermin (in case of self-defence), on the face of it, is outrageous, cruel and preposterous.The Bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing the plea of one Divyam Dhakla who had approached the Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents i.e. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and the various departments to take appropriate steps to protect the residents of Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, Chandigarh from the simian/monkey menace (caused by the large scale presence of the monkeys in the neighbourhood/vicinity).Arguments put forthIt was pleaded in the petition that in NAC Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra, Chandigarh, the aforesaid menace is increasing day by day and the residents of the area are living under the atmosphere of fear.It was submitted before the Court that most of the time; residents keep themselves as well as their children in the house and do not venture on roads or parks etc.Also, at times monkeys jump all over the roofs, pelting stones over the people and causing injuries, grievous at times. It was argued that the monkey menace is increasing only because of the negligence of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.Petitioner pleaded that on 05.08.2018, when he was going to his house on his Activa scooter, he was attacked by a monkey. He fell down from his Activa and received injuries.Thereafter, the petitioner, on 06.08.2018, sent a mail to the respondent authorities praying that the area be sanitized from monkeys. But all in vain, as no steps, whatsoever were taken.Significantly, the counsel for the petitioner, in course of arguments, strenuously insisted on issuing directions to the official respondents on the lines of the action taken in the adjoining State of Himachal Pradesh, where monkeys were declared as the Vermin species.He submitted that advantage of declaring them as Vermin is that, it would not invite corresponding action on any resident, in case of self-defence, if a resident counter attacks a monkey, which may even result in its getting killed, as long as the same is done in self-defence.Court’s ObservationThe Court observed that the aforesaid suggestion, to start killing and/or culling monkeys like vermin, on the face of it, is outrageous, cruel and preposterous, to say the least.The Court remarked,”The monkey menace is self-created by the residents and/or the visitors to the adjoining religious establishment, where, invariably the visitors/residents either out of the fondness or by way of religious offerings feed the monkeys.”The Court further remarked,”Garbage littering by residents is another contributor. The said action on their part, itself becomes counter protective, inasmuch as, the monkeys instead of being stable in their natural habitat, in the adjoining Sukhna Forest, end up gathering in and around the said religious establishment/residential colony, owing to the easy availability of food.”The Court, thus, was of the opinion that it is self-menace, created by the residents/visitors, rather than monkey menace, as termed in the petition.The Court also perused the joint task force report, and found that two full time attendants have already been engaged in the Wildlife Wing of the department to attend specific complaints at a 24 x 7 basis through telephone lines.It was also taken into account that on getting any telephone complaint, prompt action is ensured within 30 minutes thereof, by arriving on the scene of occurrence.The Court further observed that the department has got specially designed cages to capture the wild animals including monkeys, which are straying in the residential areas so as to protect the human population from any untoward attack. Captured monkeys are stated to be then released in Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary area, which is their natural habitat.Having perused the response of the official respondents as well as the report dated 17.03.2020, the Court did not feel that any further action was required other than observing that the official respondents shall remain bound with the action plan as stated in the report, and continue taking steps in accordance thereof.In the parting, however, the Court directed that”The respondent No.2 shall file a supplementary specific action taken report, within a period of 6 months, as to the exact number monkeys that may be rescued in the forthcoming 6 months and then released in their natural habitat/Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary.”Further, the Court said that the official respondents would also do well if they set up a special monkey sterilisation centre and, take appropriate steps, as one time drive to neuter the monkeys, in case it is found that the monkey population is alarmingly high enough, so as to be a burden even on the wildlife habitat. A census survey shall have to be then carried out as an essential prerequisite, before carrying out any sterilisation drive.Case Details:Case Title: Divyam Dhakla v. Chandigarh Municipal Corporation and anotherCase No.: CM-8725-CWP-2020 in/and CWP No. 23261 of 2018 (O&M)Quorum: Justice Arun MongaAppearance: Advocate Sandeep Siwach (for the petitioner); Advocate Anand Bishnoi (For respondent No.1-MC); Advocate Vikas Chatrath with Advocate Priyanka Dalal, (for respondent-U.T., Chandigarh)Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *