Telangana High Court Directs GHMC to Inspect New Facility for Seized Dogs
The Telangana High Court has issued a significant order in an ongoing legal battle over the custody of 32 dogs seized from a Hyderabad entrepreneur's residence. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to conduct a thorough inspection of a new accommodation identified by entrepreneur Kameshwari Pidaparthi for her canine companions.
Background of the Controversial Seizure
The case originated last month when authorities seized 37 dogs from Pidaparthi's Gachibowli flat following persistent noise complaints from neighbors. The animals were taken into custody by the municipal corporation, sparking a heated legal dispute that has now reached the state's highest judicial authority.
Entrepreneur's Emotional Plea and Legal Arguments
Appearing before the court in person on February 26, Kameshwari Pidaparthi made an impassioned defense of her right to keep her pets. She described the dogs as her "children" who had been integral members of her family for over 13 years. The entrepreneur vehemently denied all allegations of cruelty, questioning how the animals could have survived for more than a decade under her care if such claims were valid.
"The forcible removal of my pets using nets was completely unjustified," Pidaparthi argued before the bench. "The occasional barking of dogs does not give GHMC the legal authority to seize private property that happens to be living, breathing family members."
Tragic Developments and Conflicting Accounts
The legal proceedings took a somber turn when Pidaparthi revealed that five of the seized dogs had died while in the custody of People for Animals (PFA), the NGO that had filed the appeal seeking to put the animals up for adoption. The entrepreneur directly blamed the organization for these tragic losses.
However, PFA's counsel, Shreya Paropkari, presented a different account to the court. According to the NGO's representation, the dogs succumbed to parvovirus infections. The organization contended that none of the rescued animals had received proper vaccinations or sterilization procedures. Furthermore, PFA argued that the dogs' complete isolation within the confines of Pidaparthi's flat had left them particularly vulnerable to such infections.
Current Status of Remaining Animals and Sterilization Dispute
While acknowledging that the remaining 27 dogs and five puppies are currently stable and showing signs of progress, the court noted ongoing disputes regarding their medical treatment. Pidaparthi strongly objected to any sterilization procedures being performed on her pets without her explicit consent, citing a fundamental lack of trust in the facility where they are currently housed.
Court's Comprehensive Directions and Future Proceedings
In response to Pidaparthi's claims that she had secured a larger, more suitable facility and possessed adequate financial resources to support all the animals, the bench issued specific directives:
- The GHMC must conduct a detailed assessment of the suitability of the new accommodation identified by the entrepreneur
- The municipal corporation must submit a comprehensive veterinary status report for all remaining animals
- Photographic and video evidence documenting the current condition of the dogs in NGO custody must be provided to the court
The matter has been adjourned to March 6 for further hearing, with all parties expected to comply with the court's interim orders before the next proceeding. This case highlights the complex intersection of animal welfare regulations, property rights, and municipal authority in urban environments.
