The centre “orchestrates and engineers the complaints through its own agents, thereby manufacturing artificial legal disputes and creating circumstances that enabled it to unlawfully take custody of the animals without any order or authorisation from any competent authority,” according to the court, which also noted that the centre had obtained the dogs through a “proxy” complainant. The court ruled that Sections 34 (general authority of seizure) and 35 (treatment and care) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, were not followed in the seizure and subsequent custody of the animals.
It stated that no independent veterinarian examination was carried out and that a court order did not permit the animals’ transfer to the centre.
