Telangana HC orders GHMC to Return Seized Pet Dog to Owner, Cites a Lack of Due Process

Hyderabad: The Telanagna high court directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on Wednesday to immediately release a pet dog seized from its owner, noting that the seizure was done without following due process of law and without sufficient medical care for the animal. The court also imposed conditions on the dog’s owner while releasing the pet.

Justice B Vijaysen Reddy passed the interim order in a petition filed by EB Dakshina Murthy (58), an astrologer from Chikkadpally, challenging the seizure of his pet dog 'Ares' (reportedly a Dogo Argentino breed) by GHMC authorities, who were acting on police instructions. He alleged the dog was held in a small cage with no provisions for food or medical attention, urging the court to direct its release.

Murthy argued that despite possessing a valid pet license, his dog was snatched from him by GHMC officials on May 19, based on a complaint from his brother EB Narsimha Murthy.

According to the police and GHMC, the seizure came after a complaint lodged by the petitioner's brother, who alleged that the dog was being used to threaten him and other residents. 

The complaint led to the registration of an FIR at Chikkadpally police station, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The authorities also submitted medical records showing that the complainant had sustained injuries allegedly caused by the dog. 

However, the court observed the GHMC had acted without issuing prior notice to the petitioner or ensuring proper care for the dog while in custory. It found merit in the petitioner's argument that due process was not followed. 

Pending further hearing, the court directed the GHMC's deputy director (veterinary), Secunderabad zone, to release the dog immediately. However, the court also imposed certain restrictions, barring the petitioner from keeping the dog at his current residence and instructing him to relocate the animal to a safer environment away from strangers.

The court further directed the petitioner to implead his brother, the complainant, as a party to the writ petition and clarified that the order would not prevent authorities from taking lawful action if it is ultimately established that the breed in question is banned in India. 

The matter has been posted to July 9 for further hearing.