ROLL NUMBER:18LLB102

6TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF VISHAKAPATNAM

JANGAPURA TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS’WELFARE ASSOCIATION---------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------[Appellant]

JIDH KUMAR--------------------------------------------------------------[Respondent]

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

[counsel on behalf of the respondent]

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION--------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF FACTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUES RAISED-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRAYER-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 AND -----------------------------------------------------------------------------&

 ASSOCIATION----------------------------------------------------------------ASSOC

 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION------------------------------RWA

 ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA------------------------------AWBI

 ALL INDIA REPORTED----------------------------------------------------AIR

 LIMITED------------------------------------------------------------------------LTD

 PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-------------------------PCA

 ACCORDING-----------------------------------------------------------------ACC

 SECTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------SEC

 HIGH COURT------------------------------------------------------------------HC
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 STATUTES :

ANIMAL WELAFARE BOARD OF INDIA , 1962

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT , 1960
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT , 1986

 ARTICLES REFERRED :

ARTICLE 51[A]
ARTICLE 21

 ONLINE RESOURCES :

Article 51A(g) , https://indiankanoon.org/doc/867010/ [Last Accessed on 30september2018]

https://www.change.org/p/strict-action-against-resident-apartment-associations-that-ban-pets

[Last Accessed on 30september2018]

 CASE LAWS :

Buckle v. Holmes [1926] 2 K.B . 125.

Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K.B . 212.
Shri Ajay Madhusudan Marathe v. New Sarvodava Co Housing Society Ltd.(On 12th
January 2018)
Sanjay Phophaliya v. State of Rajasthan & others. (On 23rd July 1997)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner approached the Hon’ble district court of Visakhapatnam under

Section 91 of CPC & challenging the proceedings of the district court. The
Respondent humbly submits this memorial to the jurisdiction of this court.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Jidh Kumar lives in the township of Jung Pura Castle. He is very famous for his books
on pet grooming and activities for pets. He is of his view that his sole purpose of living
is to nurse the disabled animals.
2. His journey to a famous animal lover started in 2013,by creating the ‘Feed Back
Challenge’, wherein he challenged his friends to feed 5 stray dogs by sharing a full
bucket of food. He created another challenge named ‘Food and Bucket Challenge’
where we have to adopt three stray dogs. He adopted 3 stray dogs . Though this was not
as successful as the earlier challenge, there are few posts on social media on advantages
and dangers in adopting a stray dog.
3. He moved into Jungpura Castle in 2015 with his 3 pet dogs. The large park in the centre
of the township is the main reason for him to buy a flat there, as his dogs get a lot of
space to unexplored enjoy the clean environment. In Jungpura Castle he can see a lot
of people who own pets.
4. He started a YouTube channel by the name ‘Dog’s Jidh’, where he posts videos on
activities, games and lessons on pet grooming. By December 2016, he had adopted 16
dogs, most of which are disabled ,all living with him in his flat. His daily routine starts
with waking up and taking all his dogs out for a walk. All the dogs used to answer
nature’s call during that walk in the park. The dogs urinate and excrete in the park.
5. In July 2017,on receipt of a few complaints from the neighbours of Jidhkumar, the
Residents ‘Welfare Association of Jungpura Township had formally asked Jidhkumar
to reduce the number of dogs by offering them or adoption and also get all his dogs
vaccinated for the safety of the residents.He declined and said that he can manage all
his dogs and there was not even a sinlge incident of his dogs going out of control. In
the meanwhile , a new block of apartments was constructed in the Township, which
reduced the size of the park to one-quarter of the original size. There was a rise in the
number of man-animal conflicts. There were incidents of dog bites.
6. In January 2018, elections were held for the Residents’ Welfare Association of
Jungpura Township. The newly elected members resolved that the Township should be
clean and that the residents should be allowed to enjoy the premises to the fullest
 possible extent. In March 2018, basing on complaints relating to the noise that the dogs
make and disturbance caused, the Association had sent a notice to Jidh Kumar for
controlling his dogs, as the exam season for the children is fast approaching; to which
he replied that it is natural for the dogs to bark, you cannot ask for control in the noise
being made.
7. By June 2018, it was found that the park is stinking and filled with animal excreta, so
the association asked Jidh Kumar to desist from using the park as an area for is dogs to
excrete, and to ensure that his dogs should not harm anybody.
8. After a month, the Association has filed a suit against Jidh Kumar.
 ISSUES RAISED

 Whether Jidh Kumar has a responsibility to be answerable to the Jungpura

Township Residents’ Welfare Association about the increase in the number of
his dogs?

 Whether Jungpura Township Association restricted the rights of Jidh Kumar by

reducing the area of the park by constructing a new apartment?

 Whether the Township Association has imposed reasonable restrictions with

regard to the pets?

 Whether it amounts to Public Nuisance?

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether Jidh Kumar has a responsibility to be answerable to the Jungpura Township

Residents’ Welfare Association about the increase in the number of his dogs?
Since the association people have not raised any issue earlier when he had 3 dogs initially,
But they began to complain only when he has increased his dogs to 16 in number. Though
there is increase in the number of dogs it is the general tendency of dogs to bark. According
to the Animal Welfare Board of India, barking of dogs won’t be considered as a valid
reason to ban dogs in the apartment. Pets can’t be outrightly banned from gardens, parks
& other public spaces.

Whether Jungpura Township Association restricted the rights of Jidh Kumar by

reducing the area of the park by constructing a new apartment?
From the facts it can be clearly noted that Jidh Kumar purchased a flat in the Jungpura
Township, as his dogs get a lot of space to run, explore & enjoy the clean environment in
the park. Meanwhile, there was a reduction in the size of the park to one-quarter due
to the construction of the new block of apartments. Here it can be seen that there was a rise
in the man-animal conflicts & there were incidents of dog bites. But there were no such
incidents before the construction of the new block of apartments. In other way it can noted
that only after the reduction in area of park it led to more and more problems to public
which otherwise wouldn’t have occurred.

Whether the Township Association has imposed reasonable restrictions with regard to
the pets?
Here it was nowhere mentioned in the guidelines of association that a resident is limited
to adopt a specific number of dogs & so he has not violated any rules of association, he was
nowhere mentioned not to carry 16 dogs beforehand and when he had three dogs initially, as
he was a dog lover & also it can be foreseen by the association that he would bring more
number of dogs as there were no restrictions imposed. Therefore he could not be restricted
his right of having16 dogs.

Whether it amounts to Public Nuisance?

According to section 298 of IPC, Public Nuisance means inference with the right of public in
general. But here there is no such inference with the right of public. Possession of 16 dogs is
not natural since he gave shelter to disabled dogs in good faith. So, it doesn’t amount to
Public Nuisance.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

• WHETHER JIDH KUMAR HAS A RESPNSONSIBLITY TO BE ANSWERABLE

TO THE JUNGPURA TOWNSHIP WELFARE ASSOCIATION ABOUT THE
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HIS DOGS?
As given in the statement of facts, that the RWA asked to give his dogs for adoption & this
indicate that they are banning from the housing society. According to the article 51A(g)1 of
the constitution of India, it is the responsibility of every citizen to behave compassionately
toward the living creatures &animals. Even in Jungpura Castle, there are a lot of people
who own pets. Though there was increase in the number of dogs, it’s the tendency of dogs to
bark. According to the Animal Welfare Board of India, the barking of dogs won’t be
considered as a valid reason to ban dogs from the apartment. Pets can’t be outrightly banned
from gardens, parks & other public spaces. Since the association people have not yet raised
any issue earlier when he had 3 dogs initially. But they began to complain inly when he has
increased his dogs to 16 in number. As per Indian constitution, any sort of ban on pets is
equivalent to direct intrusion with the fundamentals guaranteed to all the citizens. So, the
association members can’t ask Jidh Kumar to get rid of dogs. No apartment or housing
society should ban keeping of pets in an apartment or housing society. Such beliefs are
against the section 11(3) which states Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,19602.

1
Constitution of India (sept.,30th ; 2018, 1 pm) https://www.india.gov.in
2
PCA, 1960 (sept.,30th ;2018, 2 pm) www.envifor.nic.in
WHETHER JUNGPURA TOWNSHIP ASSOCIATION RESTRICTED THE RIGHTS
OF JIDHKUMAR BY REDUCING THE AREA OF PARK BY CONSTRUCTING A
NEW APARTMENT?
Here it is the fact that the Jidh Kumar’s purpose of buying flat in Jungpura Castle that his
dogs get a lot of space to run, explore & enjoy the environment. Even in Jugpura Castle, he
can see a lot of people who own pets. In the meanwhile, the association has constructed a
block of apartments which reduced the park size to one-quarter. Here it can be clearly seen
that there was no such incidents before the reduction of the apartment such as dog bites, but
there after due to the reduction of the size of the park dog bites incidents has started.
According to the Environment Protection Act, 19863, Environmental Pollutant means any
solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be or tend to
be, injurious to environment. But animal excreta is not an environmental pollutant as it
doesn’t contain any of above mentioned. According to Animal Welfare Board of India4,
banning pets from accessing the park & gardens is not right and pets can express anger
related to the same.

3
Environmental Protection Act, 1986(sept.,30th;2018,3:30 pm)https://envfor.nic.in

4
Animal Welfare Board of India(sept.,30th;2018,4pm)www.awbi.org
WHETHER THE TOWNSHIP ASSOCIATION HAS IMPOSED REASONABLE
RESTRICTIONS WITH REAGARD TO THE PETS?
Jidh Kumar moved to the Jungpura Castle for the main reason that his dogs could get a space
to explore & enjoy the environment. He could also see that the people in that township also
own pets & there was no such restrictions on the number of pets he could use. When it comes
to the barking, it’s the general tendency of a dog to bite & based on this, RWA cannot ban
dogs based on invalid reasons. Here there was nowhere mentioned in
the guidelines of association that a resident be limited to adopt a number of dogs & so he has
not violated any rules of association, he was nowhere mentioned not to carry 16 dogs
beforehand & when he had 3 dogs initially, as he was a dog lover & also it can br foreseen by
the association that he would bring more number of dogs as there were no restrictions
imposed and he could not be restricted his right of having 16 dogs. It is also stated in the
case Buckle V. Holmes5 that it is natural for cats to kill pigeons and defendant was not held
liable. It is also stated in Manton V. Brocklebank6 that the tendency to kick or bite other
horses is common to all horses &the defendant was held not liable.

5
Buckle v. Holmes (1926) 2 K.B. 125.
6
Manton v. Brocklebank (1923) 2 K.B. 212.
WHEHER IT AMOUNTS TO PUBLIC NUISANCE?

RWA states that because of dog barking creates disturbance to the children for their studies
as the exam season is fast approaching & they cannot study as the barking hinders their
concentration to study. Public Nuisance is defined as it is an act or illegal omission which
cause any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or people in general who dwell
or occupy property in the vicinity or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction,
danger or annoyance to person who may occasion to use any public right. It is the fact to
Public Nuisance that there must be necessarily an act or illegal omission which causes
common injury, danger to public. But there is no such act or omission on part of
Jidh Kumar’s dogs. The main essentiality of Public Nuisance is that the defendant or
respondent should have acted unreasonably & in course of action the damage should have
caused but barking of dogs is quite natural. It is said that there must be occupying of property
in general. But, here there is no such thing called occupying property because it is a common
area for residents who live in the housing society. So it doesn’t amount to Public Nuisance.
According to the Animal Birth Control Rules,20017, they can ask him for vaccination or
sterilization of dogs. But there are many side effects for that. They may cause discomfort,
and local swelling, lack of hunger, and itching as well. So, keeping in view of these side
effects he in good faith believed that he can control his dogs. As they are already disabled if
they are affected by these side effects it may lead to the death of those stray dogs. Risk of
vaccination outweighs the deadly disease. According to PCA,1960, also infliction or
unnecessary pain or suffering on animals amounts to cruelty & also it’s not a right action.

7
Animal Birth Control Rules,2001(sept.,30th;2018,5 pm) https://awbi.org
 PRAYER

It is therefore humbly prayed before the Hon’ble court to kindly allow the appeal & may
please declare that;
The Petition filed by the Petitioner will not be maintainable.
Jidh Kumar is not answerable to the Jungpura Township Residents’ Welfare Association
about the increase in the number of dogs.
It is hereby prayed that the Township Association has imposed unreasonable restrictions with
regard to the pets.
Keeping of 16 stray dogs is a natural thing because he believed in his good faith to feed them
& this doesn’t amount to any Public Nuisance.
The conduct of Jidh Kumar doesn’t amount to negligence.
RWA cannot ban dogs due to its general tendency to bark and or pass any such order, writ or
direction as the honourable court deems fit & proper, for this the respondents shall duty
bound pray.
The entire above contentions are most humbly & respectively submitted to the bench.

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent.