For the best experience, open
https://m.indialegallive.com
on your mobile browser.
Advertisement

Manipur HC dismisses PIL on cruelty to animals over counsel's continued absence

The petitioner Yenning Animal Foundation sought various directions in relation to killing of dogs; the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the operation of unlisted meat shops; the killing of wild animals and destruction of forest land; and welfare schemes for animals, etc.
07:56 PM Jul 14, 2022 IST | India Legal
manipur hc dismisses pil on cruelty to animals over counsel s continued absence
Advertisement

The Manipur High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the context of cruelty to animals and other environment issues.

The petitioner, Yenning Animal Foundation, sought various directions in relation to killing of dogs; the implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the operation of unlisted meat shops; the killing of wild animals and destruction of forest land; and welfare schemes for animals, etc.

The matter was admitted on 24.11.2020. Preliminary objections were filed by respondents raising the issue of maintainability of this case, on the ground that it was not in conformity with the Rules framed by the High Court in relation to public interest litigation cases.

Advertisement

Having received a copy of the same, Brojendro Meetei, counsel for the petitioner foundation, sought time as long back as in April, 2021, to file a rejoinder thereto.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice MV Muralidaran observed that despite the matter being listed time and again since the said date, no rejoinder has been filed till now. Further, there was no representation for M. Brojendro Meetei, on 27.01.2022 and again on 18.05.2022. On July 6 yet again, there is no representation for Brojendro Meeitei, when the matter is taken up.

Advertisement

In the light of the unrebutted objections raised as to the maintainability of the case and the continued absence of the petitioner foundation’s counsel, the Bench dismissed the PIL for non-prosecution.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Tags :
Advertisement
Advertisement
×