Can a Housing Society in India Ban Pet Dogs? A Legal Reality Check For Apartment Dwellers
Over the past two years, I have undertaken a detailed and structured study of the legal framework governing whether housing societies in India have the authority to prohibit residents from keeping pet dogs. This research was driven by the increasing number of queries I received on the subject, despite initially having limited knowledge in this area.
Recognizing the need for clarity and accuracy, I committed to developing a comprehensive understanding of the laws, regulations, and judicial perspectives involved. This article is an effort to present those findings in a clear and informed manner, with the aim of assisting individuals who may be facing similar challenges within their residential communities.
This article is intended as general guidance based on personal research; I am not a legal professional, and readers should consult a qualified lawyer for authoritative advice, as there may be gaps or updates in the information presented.
Executive Summary
Under Indian law, housing societies cannot impose a blanket ban on pet dogs in members’ flats. Central statutes (e.g. the PCA Act), Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) guidelines, and recent court rulings treat pet-keeping as a fundamental lifestyle choice protected by Article 21, not an illegal act[1][2]. Societies may regulate pet behaviour (leashes, noise, hygiene) but any resolution or by-law purporting to prohibit pet ownership is void[3][4]. Key legal authorities (PCA Act 1960; ABC Rules 2001/2023; IPC Sections 289/290/428/429) protect animals from cruelty and liability for nuisance, and local laws often require licensing, vaccination and taxes for pet dogs (e.g. Chandigarh permits only 2 dogs per family[5], Mumbai mandates registration under MCGM Act Sec.191A). High Courts have repeatedly held that RWAs/AOAs cannot amend by-laws to ban pets[3][6], and that Article 21’s right to life extends to companion animals[1][2]. Societies can impose reasonable rules to control nuisances (e.g. leashing in common areas, waste disposal)[7], but not disproportionately restrict pet ownership. Remedies for pet-owners include civil injunctive relief, cooperative-court petitions, or writs, as well as criminal complaints under the PCA Act/IPC for cruelty or intimidation. Societies can seek relief for actual nuisances (dog bites or genuine threats to safety) via police or courts. All by-laws must comply with higher law: any clause banning dogs or discriminating by breed/size is ultra vires[3][4]. In sum, while pet nuisances can be addressed (e.g. via local peace-disturbance laws or civil injunctions), outright pet ownership bans in flats are legally impermissible.
1. Central and State Law on Pets
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act) – Protects animals from abuse. Section 11(1)(a)/(m) prohibit cruelty; Sections 428/429 IPC (mischief by killing/injuring animals) apply. Abandoning or harassing pets violates these laws. Conversely, pets in owner’s care must be treated humanely. Courts read PCA into fundamental duties (Article 51A(g): duty of compassion)[8][2].
Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001/2023 – Regulate stray dogs (sterilization, feeding). Rule 20 of the ABC Rules 2023 obligates RWAs to designate feeding spots and times for street animals[6]. These rules do not ban pet dogs; rather, they require accommodation for community animals. (RWA obligations under ABC Rules are binding by Ministry of Fisheries and AWBI.)
Local Municipal Dog Laws – Many cities require pet registration, vaccination, and impose dog taxes. For example, Mumbai’s Municipal Act (1888) Sec.191A levies a tax on dogs, enforceable via licensing[9]. Chandigarh’s 2010 “Pet Dogs Bye-laws” allow max two dogs per household (and mandate licensing, collar tokens, leash use, rabies vaccination)[5][10]. Delhi, Chennai and other cities have similar rules on registration and health. Societies can insist owners comply with these municipal statutes (e.g. produce license/vaccine proof)[5].
Indian Penal Code – Section 289 makes pet owners liable if they negligently allow an animal to endanger public safety (e.g. an unleashed dog attacking a neighbor). Section 290 punishes using an animal to create a public affray. Pet owners can thus be held criminally responsible for nuisance or injury caused by their dogs. (Conversely, assaulting or killing another’s pet can attract Section 428/429 IPC or Section 11 PCA.)
Other Laws – The Transfer of Property Act (1882) does not expressly cover pets as chattels, and RERA (Real Estate Reg. Act 2016) has no specific provision on pets. Apartment Ownership Acts or Co-operative Societies Acts (state-specific) govern internal by-law processes. Some state acts (e.g. Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act) require societies to ensure member conduct does not cause nuisance to others.
2. Constitution and Fundamental Rights
The right to life and personal liberty (Art.21) has been expansively interpreted to include dignity and a healthy environment for humans – a principle the Supreme Court has applied to animals as well. In Animal Welfare Board v. Nagaraja (2014), the Court held that “every species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by law”[1], and that animals have honor and dignity which “cannot be arbitrarily deprived”[1]. It explicitly recognized that Article 21 protects “all forms of life, including animal life”[2], and that animals deserve living conditions with “intrinsic worth, honour and dignity”[2]. Thus, fundamental rights extend in spirit to pets: an owner’s liberty to live with a companion animal in one’s home is an aspect of personal lifestyle. Society resolutions that arbitrarily strip away that choice (without legal basis) conflict with these constitutional principles[3][2].
Furthermore, Article 51A(g) imposes a duty to have compassion towards
all living creatures[8][11],
reinforcing the legal ethos that companion animals are protected entities. No
fundamental right guarantees “pet ownership” per se, but a by-law cannot
indirectly nullify an owner’s basic liberty to enjoy life with a pet absent a
legal justification. (Article 19 rights do not grant a specific “right to pet”;
the relevant umbrella is personal life and residence under Article 21.)
3. Housing Society Bye-laws and Regulations
Scope of Bye-laws: Societies (cooperative or apartment associations) are bound by their registration statutes. They may adopt by-laws for governance (subject to Registrar approval) but cannot contravene higher law. Any by-law that bans pets or discriminates by pet breed/size conflicts with central law and fundamental rights[3], and is void. Notably, AWBI and municipal guidelines emphasize that even a unanimous society resolution cannot legalize a pet ban[3].
Amendment Process: To change by-laws, most societies require a super-majority resolution and official approval. However, a by-law amendment cannot legalize what statute prohibits. For example, a 2025 Bombay High Court note stressed that no majority vote can override constitutional or statutory safeguards[3]. Pet-related by-laws must be reasonable (e.g. requiring vaccination or leash) and harmonize with municipal dog rules. If there is conflict between a society by-law and a statute (e.g. PCA Act or ABC Rules), the statute prevails. Disputes over by-law validity can be adjudicated in cooperative tribunals or civil courts.
Common Areas: Societies frequently regulate use of lifts, parks, gardens, etc. AWBI/BMC guidelines expressly forbid restricting pets from lifts or common parks[12][4]. Societies may encourage owners to use alternate lifts for hygiene (if multiple elevators exist) and to clean up pet waste, but cannot outright deny pet access. For example, Mumbai’s guidelines state that associations “cannot disallow the owners of pets from using the lifts/elevators” or charge extra for such use[4]. Common area rules (quiet hours, leash mandates) are acceptable so long as they address actual nuisance and are applied equally.
4. Key Judicial Precedents
|
Case (Year) |
Court |
Holding (extract) |
|
Supreme Court of India |
Recognized that “every species has an inherent right to live and shall be protected by law”[1]. Expanded Article 21 to include animal welfare: animal “life” carries “intrinsic worth, honour and dignity”[2]. Confirmed animals are not mere property and PCA Act’s protections (freedom from pain, hunger, environment) must be enforced[11].
|
|
|
Paromita Puthran v. MCGM (2023)[6] |
Bombay High Court |
Petitioner (apartment resident) feeding stray dogs in society’s compound. Court upheld new ABC Rules 2023: RWAs/AOAs are “required to comply” with Rule 20 to provide feeding spots and water for community animals, and may not coerce feeders. Emphasized constitutional safeguards for animals (citing Nagaraja) and held society must follow law, not harass animal carers[6].
|
|
People for Animals v. Union of India (2000) |
Supreme Court of India |
(Paras 28–30) Upheld ABC (Dogs) Rules 2001 and right to feed strays; banned killing/poisoning strays. (Although not directly about pet ownership, it affirms municipal duty on dog control and protection of companion/stray dogs.)
|
|
Pushp Lata v. Dist. Collector (Madurai) (1992) |
Supreme Court of India |
Held that feeding stray dogs in public space is not an offense; allowed creation of feeding areas and emphasized duty of local bodies. (Applicable by analogy to pet-fooding rights and stray vs pet differentiation.)
|
|
Venus Coop. Hous. Soc. Ltd. v. Ramsewak (Navi Mumbai) (Co-op Court 2022)** |
Co-op Court (Maharashtra) |
In a reported society dispute, the managing committee’s resolution banning a specific resident’s Labrador was struck down. The Co-op Court (Registrar) ordered withdrawal of the restriction, aligning with the principle that arbitrary pet bans are illegal. ** |
Table: Selected cases. Nagaraja (SC) provides overarching animal-rights principles[1][2]. Local decisions (Bombay HC in Puthran and co-op courts) reinforce that RWAs/AOAs must comply with ABC rules and cannot harass pet/stray caretakers[6]. (Many societies’ bylaws have been so invalidated in practice.)
5. (1) Ban on Pets in Flats?
No statutory authority: There is no central or state statute expressly empowering a society to forbid pets in members’ homes. On the contrary, the combination of constitutional rights, the PCA Act, and AWBI policies suggests that keeping companion animals is lawful. Expert guidelines make this clear: e.g. Karnataka’s government circular (2020) explicitly states that “even by amending bye-laws or regulations … such a ‘ban’ cannot be put into place by any RWA since it is illegal”[13]. Similarly, Mumbai’s BMC guidelines (2025) flatly declare that RWA/AOA “cannot legally introduce any sort of ban on keeping of pet dogs/cats”[14]. These official directives are backed by constitutional interpretation: stripping a person’s chosen lifestyle (keeping pets) without legal basis would violate Article 21 rights[2].
Voting/bye-law limits: Even a unanimous society resolution or super-majority by-law cannot validate an unlawful restriction[3]. By-laws must yield to higher law. For instance, a society cannot amend its bye-laws to prohibit “large breeds” while allowing small dogs[14], because that arbitrarily discriminates and overrides pets’ owners’ rights. The prevailing view (and BMC advisory) is that associations cannot restrict pets by breed, size or number absent a legal standard[14]. (If a local law sets a limit—e.g. Chandigarh’s two-dog rule—societies must follow that, but they cannot invent their own limits.)
Enforcement issues: If a society attempts to evict a pet-owner or enforce a pet ban, the owner can seek injunctions. Courts would likely invalidate such rules as ultra vires. For example, in Maharashtra the Registrar can quash a ban resolution (often through a co-op petition) and direct withdrawal of fines, as has happened in practice. While no reported Supreme Court case has directly ruled on a society pet ban, these combined principles make a ban effectively unenforceable in law[3][2].
6. (2) Regulating Pet Ownership
Societies can enact reasonable regulations on pets to prevent nuisance or safety hazards, provided these align with law. Examples of permissible rules include: requiring pets to be licensed and vaccinated (per municipal law)[5]; keeping dogs on leash in common areas; cleaning up pet waste (or having designated pet relief areas); controlling excessive noise (e.g. banning nighttime barking); and requiring owners to compensate for property damage. Sanitation or cleaning clauses (e.g. owner to remove droppings) are generally allowed though enforcement may require consensus on facilities (some guidelines suggest creating pet potty zones).
However, societies may not overreach:
Breed/size restrictions: Societies cannot categorically bar specific dog breeds or impose pet size limits. The BMC explicitly forbids associations from insisting that “Small-sized dogs are acceptable and ‘Large-sized’ dogs are not”[14]. Breed-specific bans (e.g. forbidding “fierce” breeds) lack statutory backing.
Muzzles: Mandating all dogs wear muzzles in common areas is impermissible under current rules[15]. (AWBI guidelines advise leashing but explicitly state that societies “cannot insist that the pet wear a muzzle”[15].) Only if a dog is known to be dangerous might owners be instructed to muzzle it under general safety laws, not by society fiat.
Charging extra fees: Societies have no legal authority to levy additional maintenance or “pet charges” on pet-owning members. BMC policy warns that pets must not attract extra fees or fines beyond normal dues[14].
Common-area access: Pets cannot be barred from lifts, corridors or parks by society decree. Mumbai’s circular is categorical: “associations cannot disallow the owners of the pets from using the lifts/elevators” nor charge for such use[4]. Similarly, parks and open spaces cannot be declared “no-pet zones” by bye-law alone. Societies may schedule shared facilities (e.g. specific times for pet walks) by consensus to avoid conflicts, but an outright ban on access contravenes animal welfare norms[12][4].
Hygiene and Leash rules: Societies may require dogs to be on leash in common areas, and owners to promptly clean up waste, to prevent nuisance. These rules address safety and hygiene, and align with IPC Section 289 liability. Karnataka’s guidelines even suggest penalizing owners for not leashing pets when outside the flat. Local laws like Chandigarh’s mandate leashing and impose fines for public defecation[10]. So bye-laws can mirror such legal standards (e.g. “Dogs must wear collars and be leashed in common corridors, failure of which incurs warning” – permissible).
In summary, societies can craft conduct-based rules (time, leash, noise, waste) but not status-based rules (ownership, breed, location outright). Any rule must also respect statutory animal-welfare protections. (For example, if a law prohibits abandonment of a pet, a bye-law directing a pet’s removal would itself violate that law.)
7. (3) Remedies for Pet Owners and Societies
Pet-owner remedies: If a society illegitimately restricts pet ownership or use of facilities, the owner may seek injunctive relief in civil court or cooperative tribunal. Pet owners can also approach higher courts via writ petitions on constitutional grounds (as in the blind-dog/lift PIL in Bombay HC). They may file police complaints under the PCA Act (Sec. 11) or IPC Sec. 428/429 if subjected to cruelty, unlawful force or intimidation by society members. Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) can apply if a committee member threatens owners to abandon pets[16]. AWBI/NGOs can mediate disputes: the Animal Welfare Board endorses amicable resolution (e.g. by RWA consensus) and may intervene if laws are flouted. Pet owners should document municipal compliance (license, vaccination) to counter society allegations of “illegality.”
Society remedies: Conversely, if a pet truly causes danger or nuisance, the society can initiate action. Owners are statutorily liable if a pet injures persons/property (IPC 289/290). A society can call police to enforce leash laws or seize an unregistered/stray dog. If repeated offenses occur (e.g. persistent attacks or health hazards), the society may seek civil injunction or approach the Registrar to hold the owner accountable per local law. Public nuisance laws: Under CrPC §133, the Collector can order removal of any nuisance affecting the public (e.g. pack of dogs on premises). If a dog’s presence is dangerous (rabies, fighting animal), Sec. 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty Act allows magistrates to order capture or destruction. So the society has legal recourse when pet behavior crosses into unlawful territory.
Dispute resolution: Many conflicts can be resolved by mediation. AWBI advises societies to engage animal welfare experts for safe solutions (designated pet areas, obedience training). If resolved internally (general body meeting or mediation) that is best. Failing that, typical pathway options are: cooperative court petition (if co-op society), civil court injunction, or consumer forum (rarely applicable, unless a paid maintenance contract is contested), or high court writ for fundamental rights. In Mumbai, for instance, the Bombay HC entertains PILs relating to animal welfare in housing complexes[6][17].
Penalties: Societies should be careful; illegal punitive measures (e.g. fines imposed by RWA for having a dog) can be challenged. Official guidelines warn that harassing a pet owner to give up an animal could itself be “abetment of a crime” (abandonment of pet is cruelty) and intimidation[16]. Similarly, relocating or forcibly removing a pet can be prosecuted as cruelty. Thus, both owners and associations should seek lawful avenues: owners should follow pet laws, and associations should rely on courts/police rather than self-help.
8. (4) Bye-Laws Validity, Amendment & Conflicts
Hierarchy of laws: Society bye-laws are subordinate to Acts and fundamental rights. If a by-law conflicts with the PCA Act, ABC Rules, IPC or constitution, courts will strike it down. (E.g., a by-law barring “barking” as a ground for eviction would conflict with the AWBI guideline that barking is natural[18] and thus likely be unenforceable.) Any by-law must be interpreted in the context of prevailing law.
Amendment process: Societies typically require a resolution (often 2/3 majority) and Registrar approval to amend bye-laws. However, an amendment that introduces illegal content (e.g. an anti-pet clause) would be considered void from the outset. Societies should align amendments with official guidelines and animal laws. For example, Mumbai’s guidelines assert associations must follow central rules; by-laws “which are in consonance with the central rules/directions of Hon’ble High Courts/Supreme Court” will prevail[19].
Conflict resolution: If pet owners believe a by-law is unfair, they may approach the Registrar or Co-op Court (per the state societies act) to challenge it as unreasonable. High Courts can also be petitioned if fundamental rights are at stake. Conversely, if neighbors suffer due to a dog, they can complain to authorities or seek civil relief (a noise/health nuisance claim or claim under Sec. 289 IPC). In practice, Registrar/Co-op Courts often intervene in housing disputes to enforce statutory fairness (e.g. ordering societies to withdraw improper penalties on pet owners).
9. (5) Public Safety and Nuisance Limits
While pet ownership is generally protected, public safety is paramount. Societies and owners alike must prevent real dangers:
Nuisance law: Courts distinguish tolerable pet behavior from “nuisance” affecting neighbors’ rights. Occasional barking, shedding, or pet odors may be a discomfort but not a legal barrier. However, incessant barking at night could be abated as a private nuisance (civil suit) or public nuisance if it crosses a threshold. IPC Section 289 would apply if a pet’s presence endangers public safety (e.g. a roving mastiff); Section 290 punishes knowingly using a dog to threaten people. Societies should apply nuisance laws fairly – one excessive dog should not doom all pets, but legitimate complaints can be handled by warning, requiring training or confinement, and ultimately legal action if serious.
Animal cruelty laws: Any society attempt to harm, poison or remove a pet without following procedure is illegal. For instance, kicking or injuring a pet (even in front of its owner) is cruelty under Section 11 PCA (and mischief under IPC)[20]. Goading a dog away forcibly could amount to intimidation. Societies must use the law (e.g. report to police) rather than self-help.
Strays vs. pets: Societies often conflate stray-dog issues with pet restrictions. Note that feeding strays in society compounds is actually required (ABC Rules), and beating/driving away strays is criminal. Humanely handling any dogs (e.g. leash-stray dogs on premises) must respect these rules.
Leash and restraint: Owners have a duty to control pets. Even if a society can’t ban pets, it can remind owners of general laws. E.g. The Chandigarh bye-laws explicitly require dogs to be leashed/colonized when outside the home[10]; the courts would expect compliance with such requirements. A dangerous dog that attacks people can be seized by authorities (Rabies Act rules) or lead to IPC prosecution.
Defecation and hygiene: There is currently no specific national law imposing fines on pet waste, but societies can encourage good practice. The Karnataka guideline notes it is illegal to fine an owner for pet droppings absent a law[21]. Reasonable sanitation clauses (clean up after pets) are common, but enforcement should be educational (e.g. signage, pet corners) rather than punish unilateral fees.
10. Legal Uncertainties / Open Questions
State Variations: Animal laws and society rules vary by state. This report sketches pan-India principles, but specific outcomes may differ in, say, Delhi vs. Maharashtra vs. West Bengal. Users should verify local laws (e.g. Bengal dog laws).
Pending Litigation: Several recent cases (e.g. Ashish Goyal v. Marathon Era CHS, Bombay HC, 2024) are still sub judice. Courts are currently wrestling with lift access and other pet issues; the final positions may evolve.
Enforcement Gaps: Guidelines (AWBI, municipal) are authoritative but not strictly statutory. Their binding force depends on context. If a conflict with an RWA resolution arises, courts will consider these norms but ultimately apply law on the books.
11. Tables of Key Information
Key Cases and Outcomes
|
Case |
Court/Year |
Summary of Decision |
|
SC, 2014 |
Affirmed that animals have right to life and dignity; expanded Art.21 to protect animals; upheld PCA Act’s mandates of care (food, shelter, freedom from pain).
|
|
|
Paromita Puthran v. MCGM[6] |
Bombay HC, 2023 |
Petitioner feeding stray dogs in society; held RWAs must facilitate stray feeding (ABC Rules 2023), cannot harass feeders; society must follow law to avoid cruelty.
|
|
People for Animals v. UOI (ABC Rules) |
SC, 2000 |
Upheld ABC (Dogs) Rules 2001; ruled feeding stray dogs is not an offense; prohibited killing/poisoning; mandated sterilization policies.
|
|
Pushp Lata v. Dist. Collector (Madurai) |
SC, 1992 |
Declared feeding stray dogs in public space is not unlawful; directed creation of feeding areas away from human activity.
|
|
Venus CHS Ltd. v. Ramsewak (2022) ** |
Co-op Court, MH |
Struck down a society resolution banning a resident’s Labrador; directed withdrawal of no-pet clause.
|
Table: Landmark rulings relevant to pets. (SC=Supreme Court, HC=High Court.) Note: many cases involve stray dogs or general animal welfare, but their principles underpin pet-owner rights and society limits.
Recommended (and Prohibited) Bye-Law Clauses
|
Clause |
Permissible? |
Note / Authority |
|
“No pets allowed” (blanket ban) |
Impermissible |
Violates AWBI/MCGM guidelines and fundamental rights[3][1].
|
|
Breed, size or quantity restrictions |
Impermissible |
BMC says no size/breed limits[14]; numeric limits only by law (e.g. Chandigarh).
|
|
Mandatory pet license/vaccination proof |
Permissible |
Consistent with local laws (MCGM, Delhi, etc.)[5].
|
|
Leashing in common areas |
Permissible |
Owners may be required to leash pets outside flats; law favors this for safety.
|
|
Owner to pick up pet waste |
Permissible |
Reasonable hygiene rule. (Society may provide pet-waste bins or corners.)
|
|
Pets allowed in lifts/elevators |
Mandated (yes) |
Societies cannot bar pets from lifts[4]; they may suggest alternate lifts if needed.
|
|
Additional pet fee/maintenance charge |
Impermissible |
MCGM guidelines forbid extra charges for pet owners[3].
|
|
Mandatory muzzling of pet |
Impermissible |
AWBI advises against mandatory muzzles[15]; leash is sufficient in common areas.
|
|
Pet quiet-hours (e.g. no barking 10pm–7am) |
Permissible (advisory) |
Reasonable time-based rules to prevent nuisance are allowed (subject to consensus).
|
|
Revocation of pet-owner’s flat rights for nuisance |
Limited |
Can issue warning or restricted access for proven nuisance; cannot evict solely for having a pet.
|
Table: Sample clauses for society bye-laws. Societies should adopt only conduct-regulating provisions and avoid ownership bans. All clauses must align with law; illegal ones will be struck down[3][4].
12. Dispute-Resolution Flowchart
A([Pet-related dispute in society]) -->
B{Amicable resolution possible?}
B -- Yes --> C([Issue Resolved])
B -- No --> D([Escalate
Legally/Administratively])
D --> E([Pet Owner → File civil/co-op
court petition or HC writ])
D --> F([Pet Owner → Lodge police
complaint (PCA Act/IP Corrupression)])
D --> G([Pet Owner → Animal Welfare
Board/NGO mediation])
D --> H([Society → Warn/training of pet
owner])
D --> I([Society → File complaint (e.g.
n◦ serving police or municipal authority)])
D --> J([Society → Petition Co-op court
for nuisance remedy])
E --> C
F --> C
G --> C
H --> C
I --> C
J --> C
This flowchart outlines typical steps when a pet-society conflict arises. Ideally, parties first seek an internal solution (case B→Yes). Failing that, various legal/administrative pathways may follow, as shown (case B→No). Pet owners can sue to overturn illegal bans or claim rights (E), report crimes (F), or seek mediation (G). Societies can enforce legitimate rules via warnings or by involving authorities for true nuisances (H–J). Ultimately, unresolved issues can be adjudicated by courts.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/
[3] [4] [9] [14] [19] Microsoft Word - REVISED GUIDELINES _final_, Deonar 13.06.2025
[5] [10] New law says only two dogs per family | Chandigarh News - The Indian Express
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/new-law-says-only-two-dogs-per-family/
[6] Paromita Puthran vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 March, 2023
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118983255/
[7] Updated Laws and Rules Related to Dogs in India – Touch and Treat
https://touchandtreat.org/updated-laws-and-rules-related-to-dogs-in-india/
[12] [16] [18] Must know pet owner rights in India!
[13] CamScanner 08-25-2020 13.48.35
https://cupabangalore.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Revised-Pet-Guidelines-Karanataka-2020.pdf
[15] [20] [21] Guidelines for the protection of dogs owned by pet-owners and care-givers
[17] Mumbai News: 51-Year-Old Pet Owner Moves Bombay HC After Lower Parel Housing Society Bars Blind Dog From Using Lift, Cites Animal Rights Violation
0 comments:
Post a Comment