Bombay High Court
Gunvantrai Maganlal Shah vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
(1) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21199 OF 2025
Pallavi Sachin Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai, through its Commissioner and Ors. ...Respondents
AND
(2) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21694 OF 2025
Gunvatrai Maganlal Shah ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(902) WRIT PETITION NO. 10849 OF 2025
Shashwat Foundation through its
President Ashapurana Ambekar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through its
Principal Secretary Public Health Dept. and Ors. ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Harish Pandya a/w Malhar Zatakia Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Dhruv Jain, Ms.
Anushka Jain i/b Mr. Dhruv Jain for Petitioner in WPL/21199/2025.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Prafulla Shah, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Shah and Mr.
Yakshay Shah i/b SSB Legal & Advisory for Petitioners in WPL/21694/2025.
Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi i/b Harshad Garud for Petitioner in WP/10849/2025.
Mr. Ankit Lohia i/b Yasmin Bhansali & Co for Petitioner in WPL/24664/2025.
Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Amrut Joshi, Mr. Yazad Udwadia i/b Mr. Sahil Sayyed For
Respondent No. 9.
Mr. Ram Apte, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Rupali Adhate i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for BMC.
Mr. D. Pawar, Asst. Eng., Maintainance Dept. G/N.
Nr, Bhoir, Asst. Engineer SWM (G/N).
Mr. Vitthal Jadhav, Sr. Architect (Heritage) D.P. Dept.
Smt. P. H. Kantharia, GP. With Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for State.
Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar P. P. with Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Addl. P.P. for State.
Page 1 of 9
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
DCP Mahendra Pandit, Zone 5, Mumbai Present.
P. I. Meera Jagtap, Dadar Police Station, Mumbai, Present.
Ms. Savita Prabhune AGP for State in WP/10849/2025.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Sweta Shah & Mr. Abhshek Roy for Respondent
Nos. 2 & 3 PMC in WP/10849/2025.
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Adv. i/b Mr. Vishal Navale for Respondent No. 3 in
WPL/21199/2025.
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra i/b A. A. Ansari for UOI, R. No. 4 in WPL/21199/2025.
Mr. Kunal R. Kumbhat a/w Mr. Karthik Pillai for R. No. 5 in WPL/21199/2025.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE: 07 AUGUST 2025
P.C.
1. We have passed detailed orders in these proceedings on 15 th July 2025,
24th July 2025, and 30th July 2025. Most significantly, in our order dated 24 th July
2025 we observed that considering the issues as involved, the present proceedings
ought not to be considered as "adversarial proceedings", inasmuch as the decision of
the Municipal Corporation was stated to be taken in the larger interest of the
societal health, which includes health of all categories of persons from children to
senior citizens. It was observed that such issues need to be considered from the
perspective of "human health" being paramount, which directly affect "right to life
and livelihood" as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was
also observed that there cannot be anything more vital than "human health" and if
there is any hazard and/or potential of such hazard by breeding of pigeons and by
congregating them in Kabutarkhanas, certainly it was a matter of grave societal
concern. In such situation when steps were being taken by the Mumbai Municipal
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
Corporation in larger interest of public health of thousands of innocent citizens,
on the basis of scientific research and empirical materials whether such action of
the Municipal Corporation could be labelled as illegal, was the question which was
posed.
2. In the earlier order passed by this Court, we had also requested Dr.
Sujeet K. Rajan, a renowned Chest Physician to place on record his opinion on
these actions being taken by the Municipal Corporation. We had also made a
reference to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A.S.
Oka and P.N. Deshmukh, JJ., as their Lordships then were) about 7 years ago, in
the case of Adarsh Chowpatty Pragati Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. [Writ Petition No. 2197 of 1998] in regard to the pigeons feeding at
Chowpatty and which was recommended to be removed considering the medical
evidence, as observed in the said judgment.
3. On such backdrop, Dr. Sujeet Rajan has forwarded his opinion dated 4 th
August 2025, which is to the following effect:-
"With regards to the Writ petition (L) 21694 of the Honorable
High Court, I have the following response:
I cannot under-emphasise the importance of dismantling open
pigeon-feeding grounds. I would like to reiterate what I wrote
in 2018 and also emphasise that even continued exposure to
pigeon droppings (not just pigeon-feeding which is even more
dangerous), constitute a hazard to lung health, and even more
so in susceptible individuals.
We have had instances of teenage children diagnosed with
fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (fHP) when I wrote my
observations in 2018 having sadly succumbed to their fHP in
the past couple of years. It is frustrating to witness such cases,
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
and especially when anti-fibrotic drugs are unable to reverse the
established fibrosis. Evidence published in 2019 suggested that
antifibrotic drugs may slow the progression of the fibrosis
(Flaherty et al N Engl J Med 2019;381:1718-1727).
Since this study, we have started using anti-fibrotic drugs for
progressive fibrotic lung disease in fHP - at most we are able to
slow progression in some patients, but never able to reverse the
fibrosis. Patients gradually become oxygen-dependent, involved
with palliative medicine specialists, and counselled and
sometimes (in those who can afford it) referred for lung
transplant. It is very challenging to look after young patients
with this disease who progress.
In fact, the majority of my patients who have undergone or
been referred for lung transplant, are patients with fHP, unlike
many other transplant centers in the world where idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) a disease largely of the elderly above
60 - is the commonest indication for lung transplant referral.
I need to emphasize that these pigeon-breeding areas need to
be dismantled at the earliest - and would also advise focus on
such areas within housing societies - where hapless victims of
fHP often have no say and especially when society members
and office bearers prevail over their wishes."
(emphasis supplied)
4. It is clear that Dr. Sujeet Rajan has underscored the importance of
dismantling open pigeon-feeding grounds, being his reiteration of what he had
pointed out in the year 2018 and which was taken into consideration by the
Division Bench of this Court in Adarsh Chowpatty Pragati Mandal (supra). He has
clearly stated that continued exposure to pigeon droppings and not just pigeon-
feeding which is even more dangerous, constitute a hazard to lung health, and even
more so in susceptible individuals. He has referred to the ill-effects on teenage
children, who are diagnosed with fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (fHP), in
emphasizing that even an effective treatment cannot be of much assistance to the
patients and the deterioration of health which they would suffer as the disease
progresses. Finally, he emphasized that the pigeon-breeding areas need to be
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
dismantled at the earliest, and also in the housing societies, if there are any such
areas where hapless victims of fHP often have no say and especially when society
members and office bearers prevail over their wishes. These are the views not
different from what was put before us in the earlier occasion in the affidavit filed on
behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Dr. Amita U. Athavale, Professor and Head
of the Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Environmental Pollution Research
Centre on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. The question is whether "we the
citizens" should discard such expert opinions and which are certainly on scientific
research and empirical medical materials. It ought not to be so casual to discard
such materials and more importantly, when the collective health of the citizens at
large, is at stake and not merely handful of citizens.
5. On the above conspectus, we may also observe that what would stare at
the citizens is what has been provided for under the Constitutional principles. In
providing for fundamental duties as prescribed in Part-IVA of the Constitution,
clause (h) of Article 51A ordains that the citizens "develop the scientific temper and
humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform". This duty would be required to be
balanced with the duty to protect and improve the natural environment, wildlife
and compassion for living creatures as provided for in clauses (h) and (g) of Article
51A which reads thus:-
"(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures;
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of
inquiry and reform;"
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
6. We may also refer to the provisions of Article 39 of the Constitution of
India, which provides for 'Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State'.
In our opinion, the provisions of clauses (e) and (f) thereof are relevant, which read
thus:-
"(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women,
and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens
are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations
unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop
in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity
and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation
and against moral and material abandonment."
7. It is on such backdrop, the proceedings are required to be considered.
Today, we have medical material which is placed on record by the Municipal
Corporation in the affidavit filed by Dr. Amita U. Athavale, Professor and Head of
the Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Environmental Pollution Research
Centre. We also have the opinion of Dr. Sujeet K. Rajan of the Bombay Hospital,
who is an expert in the field. Learned counsel for the petitioners also intend to
place on record some material.
8. Thus, there is a wealth of medical material on these issues. Certainly, the
Court would not have any expertise to examine such materials and form any final
opinion in the event the petitioners intend to dispute such medical opinions. It is
for such reason, we are inclined to hear the learned Advocate General on behalf of
the State, so that an "Expert Committee" can be appointed as may be suggested.
The State is a custodian of larger public health and the societal welfare as also is
under an obligation to balance the interests of the large population. It is equally the
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
duty of the Municipal Corporation to protect public health and prevent disease and
considering such vital aspects in the larger interest of public health, has prohibited
feeding at the Kabutarkhanas.
9. Thus, with the wisdom of the State Government as also with the
wisdom of the Municipal Corporation, we are certain that the issues can be
resolved by having appropriate medical opinion on whether the decision as taken
by the Municipal Corporation to close down the feeding of pigeons at the
Kabutarkhanas, taken in larger public interest of the health of the citizens, is a
correct decision. If the opinion of the Committee is such that feeding areas are
rightly closed by the Municipal Corporation, then certainly such expert opinion
needs to prevail, as the same would be in the paramount interest of public health.
10. We are sure that in such situation, certainly the State Government or
the Municipal Corporation would not take a position contrary to the expert
opinion to be rendered by such Committee which would comprise of experts in
the field. Such Expert Committee can be appointed after receiving suggestions,
which may be given by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Municipal
Corporation and also the State Government so that we can pass appropriate orders
to constitute such Committee.
11. In the event, the Expert Committee accepts the decision of the
Municipal Corporation and as a consequence thereof the decision of the
Municipal Corporation is not required to be recalled, in that event after consulting
the experts, for example the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), the Animal
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
Welfare Board of India and other experts as may be available, appropriate steps can
be taken to find out alternatives, on the suggestions as may be made by the
different stakeholders including the petitioners, so that a workable mechanism can
be formulated and set into motion.
12. In our prima facie opinion, this is the only manner the impasse can be
resolved. We accordingly adjourn the proceedings to 13th August 2025 (HOOB)
at 3.00 p.m. so that we would hear the learned Advocate General as also we can
take the names of experts who can form part of the committee to be appointed by
the State Government.
13. In the meantime, let reply affidavits filed on behalf of the Municipal
Corporation or any other parties be circulated and/or served to the parties so that
all the learned counsel can be heard on their respective contentions on the
adjourned date of hearing.
14. We also record that the Municipal Corporation is not before us today to
say that the decision which was taken by the Municipal Corporation in the public
interest to close down the Kabutarkhanas and/or stop feeding the pigeons has in
any manner been revoked or diluted. Thus, the ban imposed by the Municipal
Corporation to feed pigeons in public spaces very much stands. In the event, the
petitioners intend to have any further orders, they are free to file their respective
Interim Applications, we shall hear the parties on the Interim Applications.
15. At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel
appearing for one of the petitioners that the petitioner intends to feed the pigeons.
Darshan Patil
1-2-902-WPL-21199-25 ORS.DOC
If that be so, we permit the petitioner to make an application to the Municipal
Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner shall grant an opportunity of a
hearing to the petitioner and to the other stakeholders and pass an appropriate
orders as per law and most importantly taking into consideration the larger issue of
public health. In the event if any such application is rejected, liberty to the
petitioners to apply to the Court.
16. In the meantime, ad-interim orders passed earlier shall continue to
operate till the adjourned date of hearing.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Date: 07/08/2025 21:27:22 Darshan Patil
