Kaustav Paul vs The State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 30 August, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Kaustav Paul vs The State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 30 August, 2025

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

Serial No. 04         HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List                   AT SHILLONG

     PIL No. 4 of 2024
                                                  Date of order: 30.08.2025
     Kaustav Paul              vs         The State of Meghalaya & ors.
     Coram:
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
     Appearance:
     For the Petitioner    :   Ms K. Decruse, Adv.
                               Mr S. Khyriem, Adv
                               Mr B. Snaitang, Adv.
     For the Respondents :     Mr A. Kumar, AG with

Ms R. Colney, GA
Mr E.R. Chyne, GA

i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:

Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media
reporting this judgment is directed to mention the composition of
the bench by name of judges, while reporting this
judgment/order.

In this public interest litigation, learned Advocate General has

brought to our notice a judgment and order of the Supreme Court in City

Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price reported in 2025 SCC Online SC

1792. He has particularly drawn our attention to paragraph 36 which is

set out below:

“36. We are also informed that numerous writ petitions/suo
moto petitions are pending in various High courts, more or less

Page 1 of 3
dealing with common issues. Hence, the Registry shall seek
information about such pending writ petitions from the Registrar
Generals of all the High Courts, and thereafter, these writ
petitions shall stand transferred to this Court for analogous
consideration along with the main matter.”

Although many issues may be common between petitions

concerning stray dogs in other High Courts and in the Supreme Court,

we feel that it is our duty to point out that in this State there is peculiarly

distinctiveness in the menace posed by stray dogs.

We have been specifically told that quite a number of stray

street dogs are biter dogs and very vicious in nature. In roads, streets

and other public places they attack persons suddenly and at times

causing grave injury.

Having heard those submissions in this public interest litigation,

we had, inter alia, directed those dogs to be taken hold of by the public

authorities, inoculated, vaccinated medically attended to and then kept

in shelters for observation before setting them free. With dogs of this

nature, freeing them without satisfaction that they have ceased to be

biter dogs, and allowing them to frequent public places would pose

grave danger to the public.

In those circumstances, we direct the Registrar General of this

Court to make a formal application before the Supreme Court on the

Page 2 of 3
basis of this order and seek appropriate directions with regard to

retention of this public interest litigation in this Court. We strongly

recommend that a public interest litigation of this character and nature

be retained in this Court because of its peculiar and distinctive feature.

List this public interest litigation on 15th October, 2025 to

receive a report from the Registrar General.

           (W. Diengdoh)                               (I.P. Mukerji)
               Judge                                    Chief Justice


Meghalaya
30.08.2025
"Sylvana PS"




                                                                  Page 3 of 3