$~189 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9350/2025 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS PETA INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. alongwith Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Ms. Arunima Kedia, Ms. Meghna and Ms. Saumya Sinha, Advocates. versus THE COMMITTEE FOR CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS CCSEA, MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Adv. for UoI. Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. A. Mandal, Advocates for R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 25.09.2025 O R D E R CM APPL. 61410/2025 - seeking clarification of the judgement dated 16- 09-2025 1. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking certain clarifications viz. paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment dated 16.09.2025. It is further sought that an appropriate direction/s may be issued in relation to rehabilitation of 73 beagles (who are no longer being used for breeding and experiments yet presently housed at respondent no.2 facility), as identified and recommended in the earlier inspection reports to an appropriate animal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:19:00 welfare organisation. 2. It has been averred in the application that the judgment dated 16.09.2025 does not contain any directions for taking any rectificatory steps as regards the recommendations that may be made by the inspection committee (constituted by the judgment dated 16.09.2025) in its inspection report, (pursuant to the inspection being conducted in terms of the Judgment dated 16.09.2025). However, the said contention is misplaced inasmuch as a perusal of the paragraph no. 21 of the Judgment dated 16.09.205 brings out that this Court has clearly directed as under: “21. Upon conclusion of the aforesaid exercise, the inspection report (together with recommendations, if any) shall be provided to the petitioner and the respondents. Upon receipt of the inspection report, the respondent no.1 shall take cognizance of any deficiencies that may be revealed in the inspection report and shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The respondent no.2 shall also take immediate rectificatory steps as may be warranted in terms of the inspection report and/or directions issued by the respondent no.1. This Court acknowledges the fair stand of Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2, that appropriate rectificatory steps (as may be required) shall be taken if any deficiencies are found during inspection.” 3. In the aforesaid conspectus, there is no occasion to clarify the judgment dated 16.09.2025. 4. Insofar as the clarification sought by the applicant vis-a-vis the rehabilitation of 73 Beagles (who were being used for the purpose of experiments by respondent no.2) is concerned, Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 assures and undertakes, on instructions, that appropriate steps in accordance with law, and in scrupulous compliance with the regulatory mechanism, would be taken for proper rehabilitation of the aforesaid 73 Beagles. The said statement is taken on record. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:19:00 5. The present application stands disposed of in the above terms. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2025/at This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2025 at 12:19:00