1 2025:CGHC:43826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4609 of 2025 1 - Yogita Seth D/o Sanatan Nayak Aged About 45 Years R/o Womens Health Coordinator (R.H.O.), Sub-Health Center (Up-Swasthya Kendra) Parsada, Tehsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Of Veterinary Services, Revenue Department, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector/ District Magistrate District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Sub Divisional Magistrate Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Center, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Community Health Officer Ayushman Arogya Mandir Parsada, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Principal Government Primary School In Integrated Education Parsada, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - Station House Officer Ps Saraipali, Tehsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the illegal, Discriminatory & Arbitrary Action taken by the respondent authorities. The respondent No. 3 & respondent No. 4 without jurisdiction & without following the due process of law i.e. without 2 complying the Principle of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem) have passed the Order dated 08.08.2025 and directed the respondent No. 5 to remove the private pets from the compound. The pets (Two German Shepherd Dogs) are in exclusive possession of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire complaint as alleged is done with ulterior motive to remove dogs from the campus since the petitioner has made written complaint to PS Saraipali regarding the illegal activities performed by some of the villagers in highly intoxicated conditions. The impugned orders were passed without any jurisdiction and without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire act was done ex-parte and to harass the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing was giving to petitioner to put her case as to why these dogs who are with petitioner since 2006 is not menace to society. He further submits that the impugned order itself violates the very back principle of prevention of cruelty to animals Act, 1960. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it has been mentioned as under:- mDr laca/k esa fodkl[k.M f’k{kk vf/kdkjh ,oa [k.M fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh lkeq- Lok- dsUnz ljk;ikyh ls tkap izfrosnu fy;k x;kA muds la;qDr tkap izfrosnu vuqlkj ;ksfxrk lsB }kjk vius dk;ZLFky ¼fuokl½ vk;q”eku vkjksX; eafnj ijlnk esa teZu lSQMZ uked dqRrk ikydj j[kk x;k gSA fo|ky; ,oa LokLF; dsUnz ,d gh ifjlj esa gksus ds dkj.k cPpksa dks dqRrksa ls [krjk ,oa fo|ky; ifjlj lg fdpu ‘ksM esa xanxh gks jgh gSaA dk;kdYi xkbZMykbZu ds vuqlkj vLirky ifjlj dks ikyrq tkuojks] vokjk Ik’kqvksa ls eqDr j[kuk vko’;d gSA ifjlj esa fo|kky;@vkaxuckMh gksus ds dkj.k cPpksa dks Free and 3 Comp Edu. Act 2009 rFkk iks”k.k ;kstuk varxZr lqjf{krk@[krjk eqDr ifjos’k dh vko’;drk vfuok;Z gSA vr% vkidks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vk;q”eku vkjksX; eafnj ijlnk ds ifjlj esa dqRrs dk ikyu u djs rFkk fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vkokjk Ik’kq@dqRrk ls eqDr gks tks lkoZtfud minzo mRiUu djrs gSA ‘kkldh; ifjlj ls ikyrq dqRrk dks gVkdj ikyu izfrosnu bl dk;kZy; esa Hkstuk lqfuf’pr djsaA 7. In view of above, it reflects that the campus of Health Center and School are in same compound, the students are afraid of dogs and dirt, therefore this Court does not find any ground to entertain this petition. However, the respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law/rules/regulations within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti