Airliners-India Forum Index Airliners-India
Flickr Group & Facebook
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

AAI's suit against MCGM - pertaining to dogs on airport land

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Airliners-India Forum Index -> Aviation Law
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 922
Location: India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:44 pm    Post subject: AAI's suit against MCGM - pertaining to dogs on airport land Reply with quote

Airport Authority of India
Vs.
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges:
C.K. Thakker, C.J. and S.A. Bobde, J.

Subject: Civil

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

Case Note:
[A] Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 - Section 12 -- Aircraft Act, 1934 -- Sections 5, 5A -- Safety of Aircrafts - Undesirable presence of animals at the Airports - Powers of Director General of Civil Aviation - Director General empowered to deal with all matters affecting safety of Airports and undesirable presence of animals at the Airports.

Held:

The provisions clearly empower the petitioners to exercise effective control over the Airports and includes the power to deal with all matters affecting the Airports and their safety including the undesirable presence of animals at Airports.

Having regard to the provisions in Sections 5 and 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934, it is dear that Parliament, intended that the Central Government is entitled to make Rules which inter alia provides for the safety of the Aircraft and the area in which they operate for ensuring the safety of lives. Further, Section 5A clearly empowers the Director General of Civil Aviation, who is one of the members of the petitioner, to issue direction in respect, of the matters specified in sub Section (2) of Section 5 "for securing the safety of Aircraft operation".

Having regard to the said provisions, it is hereby held that the petitioner has the power to deal with the dog menace at the Airport, of course, by issuing appropriate directions in accordance with law.

[B] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Sections 4, 9, 11(3), 38 - Killing of animals - The Act does not prohibit killing of animals -Contemplates extermination or destruction of any animal and destruction of stray dogs in legal chambers.

The Act does not prohibit the killing of animals but in fact contemplates extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the-time being in force and also the destruction of stray dogs in legal chambers. A true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act suggests that it is intended to prevent Cruelty and unnecessary pain and suffering to animal and not prohibit killing.

[C] Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 - Rr. 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 -Undesirable presence of dogs at the Airports - A piece of subordinate legislation - Cannot curtail a provision of the Aircraft Act and Airport Authority of India and render them of no effect - Rules required to be construed as Illustrative.

The Rules of 2001 which are framed by the Central Government in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are a piece of subordinate legislation which cannot, curtail a provision of the Aircraft Act and Airport Authority of India Act and render them of no effect. Moreover, the rules do not contemplate the situation before this Court at all, namely, the possibility of the presence of a dog threatening lives or safety of hundreds of passengers.

In these circumstances, the Rules must be construed as not exhaustive of the circumstance in which street dogs can be killed. The Rules must be construed as Illustrative of the circumstances in which such dogs may be put to sleep. Indeed, the right of every citizen to have his life protected, including the right to self-defence, cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, wherever an animal threatens the life of the human being it must be held that the human being has a right to protect his life, if necessary, at the cost of the life of the animal.

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, J.

1. The Airport Authority of India has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant requisite permission to the petitioner to kill or otherwise deal with stray dogs. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to provide dog vans for catching of or transporting far away dogs from Airport area and also in case of emergency permission to kill stray clogs at. Airport.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the respondent No. 5 is the Animal Welfare Board of India and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the Ministry of Social Justice and Improvement and the Union of India respectively, who have been heard in the matter. We have also heard the All India Animal Welfare Association and Viniyog Pariwar Trust, which are non-governmental organisations.

3. The setting of this case is the Chhatrapati Shlvaji International Airport (hereinafter referred to as "the Airport"). It is a large area admeasuring approximately 1875 acres. An area of about 200 acres has been encroached upon by slum dwellers and land grabbers. There are about .65,000 illegal structures on the encroached area. There are nallas which flow through the said land, outside. The petitioner which is charged with the security of the area has erected a compound wall around the land. However, according to the petitioner this wall is often breached by surrounding encroachers and therefore stray dogs enter into the Airport area. According to the petitioner even an attempt to put grating in the nallas has not prevented the stray dogs from entering the Airport area. The real problem arises due to the presence of the stray dogs in the critical operational and movement area for the Aircraft at the Airport.

4. The petitioner submits that the menace of dogs in the operational and movement area of the Aircraft endangers the safety of the Aircraft, particularly at the landing and take-off stages which are critical for the Aircraft. The petitioners have cited several instances of dogs having been sighted in the critical area and also instances of Flights including VVIP Flights which have been affected thereby. There are instances which have been brought on record where the Pilots have had to abort take-off and landing. References have been made to Flights which have had to hold overhead Mumbai, three of them for a cumulative period of 62 minutes, which therefore had to be delayed for 17, 25 and 20 minutes respectively. An instance has been cited where an Aircraft had to hold overhead Mumbai for such a long period that it eventually had to be diverted to Ahmedabad because it would otherwise run out of fuel. More importantly an instance has been cited where Flight 671 (Mumbai-Madras) had a suspected dog hit during takeoff roll at Mumbai Airport. The Air Traffic Controller, Mumbai confirmed that a dead mutilated dog was found on the runway after the departure of the Flight. During the post-inspection on landing at Madras, the left brake assembly of the Aircraft was found damaged. None of these instances have been effectively countered by any of the respondents or the Intervencrs.

5. Indeed, the aforesaid constitute a menace and raises spectre of an accident which could endanger a number of innocent human lives. Besides, it causes an unnecessary increase of cost and inconvenience involved in delay of Flights due to their diversion to other destination.

6. After the petition was entertained by this Court, this Court passed several orders and in particular reiterated its earlier judgment and order dated 5th October, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998, which lays down Comprehensive Guidelines for Dog Control and Management. The broad features of the Guidelines are that a stray dog has to be captured using human methods such as lassoing or soft-loop animal-catchers and thereafter they are required to be sterilised and re-located in the same location from which they were captured. This Court noted that in this petition all agreed that the Airport Authority of India faces a severe problem which requires immediate solution. All the parties present before the Court showed their concern for the safety of Aircraft and passengers and all agreed that something has to be done immediately to avoid any unfortunate incident. This Court, however, did not accede to the prayer of the petitioner that they be permitted to kill the dogs in view of judgment in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998 which lays down the comprehensive Guidelines for Dogs Control and Management. At that stage, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation submitted to the Court that it had only four dog vans, out of which three have broken down and only one is functional. This Court, therefore, directed the Corporation to take immediate steps to see that the dog vans are also repaired urgently and put into operation. This Court, however, observed that in an extreme situation, harsh measures may have to be evolved, which we would like to avoid,

7. Thereafter, on 5th December, 2003, this Court again directed the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to implement strictly the directions issued by this Court in the earlier order namely direction to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to send its dog van to the Airport thrice in a week - on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and to catch the dogs and hand them over to non governmental organisations which would sterilise them or relocate them.

8. Unfortunately, it appears that inspite of the aforesaid orders and the repeated requests by the petitioner, the respondent - Mumbai Municipal Corporation has been unable to effectively eradicate the menace. In fact, at one stage they expressed their inability to deal with the dogs at the Airport. The petitioner has contended that the presence of stray dogs in the operational and movement areas of the Airport continued. In fact they have brought to the notice of this Court the data which shows the inefficiency of the Corporation in taking care of the menace. The date is as follows :

DETAILS OF BMC DOG VAN VISIT/DOGS CAUGHT AT CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MUMBAI

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Scheduled Dog Actual Dog No. of Dogs No. of Dogs Remarks
Van Visits Van Visits Sighted Caught
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 114 73 1368 289 Dog van visit
started w.e.f.
20.4.2001.
2002 154 48 626 126 No visits were
made by BMC
dog van for five
months (i.e. from
April to August).
2003 139 67 612 71 No visits were
(upto made in Janu-
No. ary and Febru-
2003) ary, 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They have also brought on record a letter from the Indian Airlines to the petitioner of an incident of a dog hit on IA Airbus 320 while landing at Mumtaai on 24th November, 2003 in which the Captain of the Aircraft reported as follows :

During landing roll, dog crossed runway. Suspect dog hit. Aircraft was stopped safely and parked on bay with no abnormality.
The letter further states as under :

During investigation, hydraulic leak was observed from RH main landing gear area. On further inspection it was observed that No. 4 brake assembly hoses (Part No. Aeroquip AE 4700 and AE 24637) guide bracket (Part No. 201042101) and support bracket near lower torque link found damaged. However, green and yellow hydraulic quantity was observed normal. It was also observed that the conduit coming from electric plug and support bracket near torque link was twisted.
We find that this is a matter of great concern.

9. Learned Counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation fairly accepted the fact that they have not been able to send their dog van to the Airport regularly. The Corporation has pleaded several difficulties such as paucity of dog vans and dog squad personnel for the purpose. It is possible that the Corporation has genuine difficulty though we would not countenance such problems In the face of our orders. Nonetheless, things being what they are, we find that it is necessary to consider the harsher measure which the petitioner has urged before us.

10. Chiefly, it is necessary to consider whether the petitioner should be allowed to kill a stray dog in an emergency. The question as to what is an emergency was strongly debated before us. It was argued that if the Airport was regularly cleared of dogs, no emergency could arise. We cannot accept this contention. We are also of opinion that it is not possible to define an "emergency" which may arise in any and various forms. We, however, would like to state that the emergency contemplated is one which poses a threat to the Aircraft or its passengers at the Airport due to the presence of a stray dog. We feel that the petitioner must be fully empowered to effectively deal with such an emergency in case it arises.

11. A reading of the relevant provisions of the legislation on the subject is necessary. The petitioner is constituted under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. The relevant provisions of Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:

12. Functions of the Authority,-

(1) Subject to the rules, if any. made by the Central Government in this behalf, it shall be the function of the Authority to manage the Airports, the civil enclaves and the aeronautical communication stations efficiently.

(2) ...

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2) the Authority may -

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) provide air safety services and search and rescue facilities in coordination with other agencies;

(d) ...

(e) ...

(f) ...

(g) ...

(h) ...

(i) ...

(j) ...

(k) ...

(l) ...

(m) ...

(n) ...

(o) take all such steps as may be necessary or convenient for, or may be incidental to, the exercise of any power or the discharge of any function conferred or imposed on it by this Act;

(p) perform any other function considered necessary or desirable by the Central Government for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of Aircraft to, from and across the air space of India.

In our view the above provisions clearly empower the petitioners to exercise effective control over the Airports and includes the power to deal with all matters affecting the Airports and their safety including the undesirable presence of animals at Airports.

12. Moreover, the Aircraft Act, 1934 also contain certain powers. At this point it must be noted that the petitioner, the Airport Authority of India, inter alia consists of the Director General of Civil Aviation, who is also one of the authorities contemplated by the Aircraft Act, 1934. The relevant provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 reads as follows :

5. Power of Central Government to make rules.

(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules regulating the manufacture, possession, use, operation, sale, import or export of any Aircraft or class of Aircraft and for securing the safety of Aircraft operation.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for -

(a) the authorities by which any of the powers conferred by or under this Act are to be exercised;

(h) the air-routes by which and, the conditions under which Aircraft may enter or leave India, or may fly over India, and the places at which Aircraft shall land;

(m) the measures to be taken and the equipment to be carried for the purpose of ensuring the safety of life;

(q) ...

(qq) the prohibition of slaughtering and flaying of animals and of depositing rubbish, filth and other polluted and obnoxious matter within a radius of ten kilometers from the aerodrome reference point.

Section 5A reads as follows :

5A. Power to issue directions.-

(1) The Director General of Civil Aviation or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Central Government may from time to time, by order, issue directions, consistent with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, with respect to any of the matters specified in cls, (b), (c), (e), (f) (g) (h) and (m) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5, to any person or persons engaged in Aircraft operations or using any aerodrome, in any case where the Director General of Civil Aviation or such other officer is satisfied that in the interests of the security of India or for securing the safety of Aircraft operations, it is necessary so to do.

(2) Every direction issued under Sub-section (1) shall be complied with by the person or persons to whom such direction is issued."

Having regard to these provisions, it is clear that Parliament intended that the Central Government is entitled to make Rules which inter alia provides for the safety of the Aircraft and the area in which they operate for ensuring the safety of lives. Further, Section 5A clearly empowers the Director General of Civil Aviation, who is one of the members of the petitioner, to issue direction in respect of the matters specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 "for securing the safety of Aircraft operation.

13. Having regard to the said provisions, we hereby uphold the power of the petitioner to deal with the dog menace at the Airport, of course, by issuing appropriate directions in accordance with law.

14. Learned Counsel for the Interveners, in particular, Messrs Aspi Chinai and Jal Andhyarujina, submitted that the law which prevent cruelty to animal prohibits such a course. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. This Act was enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. Section 9 prescribes the functions of the Animal Welfare Board constituted under Section 4, the relevant part of which reads as follows :

9. Functions of the Board.-(a) to (e) ....

(f) to take all such steps as the Board may think fit to ensure that unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities, whenever it is necessary to do so, either instantaneously or after being rendered incensible to pain or suffering.

Section 11 which delineates what constitutes cruelty to animals, contain Sub-section (3), which reads as follows :

11(3), Nothing in this section shall apply to-

(a) ...

(b) the destruction of stray dogs in legal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed; or

(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force.

We find that the Act does not prohibit the killing of animals but in fact contemplates extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force and also the destruction of stray dogs in legal chambers. A true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act suggests that it is intended to prevent cruelty and unnecessary pain and suffering to animal and not prohibit killing. In particular, the Act does not contemplate the action that may be taken in an emergency,

15. Learned Counsel for the Interveners, however, drew our attention to rules framed by the Central Government under the aforesaid Act, called the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. These rules extensively provide for the management of dogs including pet dogs, street dogs. Rule 6 of the said Rules reads as follows :

6. Obligations of the local authority :

(1) The local authority shall provide for

(a) establishment of a sufficient number of dogs pounds including animal kennels/shelters which may be managed by animal welfare organisations;

(b) requisite number of dog vans with ramps for the capture and transportation and street dogs;

(c) one driver and two trained dog catchers to be provided for each dog van;

(d) an ambulance-cum-clinical van to be provided as mobile center for sterilisation and immunisation;

(e) incinerators to be installed by the local authority for disposal of carcasses;

(g) periodic repair of shelter or pound.

(2) If the Municipal Corporation or the local authority thinks it expedient to control street dog population, it shall be incumbent upon them to sterilize and immunize street dogs with the participation of animal welfare organisations, private individuals and the local authority.

(3) The Animal Welfare Organisations shall be reimbursed the expenses of sterilisation/immunisation at a rate to be fixed by the Committee on fortnightly basis based on the number of sterilisation/immunisation done.

Rule 7 of the said Rules provides for capturing, sterilisation, immunization and release of dog by the dogs squad. Rules 9 and 10, which provide for euthanasia of street dogs and for dealing with furious or dumb rabid dogs, read as under:

"9. Euthanasia of Street Dogs. Incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian appointed by the Committee shall be euthanised during specified hours in a humane manner by administering Sodium Pentothal for adult dogs and Thiopental Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified veterinarian or euthanised in any other humane manner approved by Animal Welfare Board of India. No dog shall be euthanised in the presence of another dog. The person responsible for euthanising shall make sure that the animal is dead, before disposal.

10. Furious or dumb rabid dogs :

(1) On the receipt of complaints from the public to the Dog Control Cell of the local authority or on its own, the dog squad of the local authority would catch such dogs, suspected to be rabid.

(2) The caught dog would then be taken to the pound where it would be isolated in an isolation ward.

(3) The suspected rabid dog would then be subjected to inspection by a panel of two persons i.e.

(i) a veterinary surgeon appointed by the local authority and (ii) a representative from an Animal Welfare Organisation.

(4) If the dog is found to have high probability of having rabies it would be isolated till it dies a natural death. Death normally occurs within 10 days of contracting rabies. Premature killings of suspected rabid dogs therefore prevents the true incidence of rabies from being known and appropriate action being taken.

(5) If the dog is found not to have rabies but some other disease it would be handed over to the A.W.Os. who will take the necessary action to cure and rehabilitate the dog.

Rule 13 which constitutes an interface with any other law in force in any area to which these rules extend, reads as follows :

13. Application of rules where local by-laws etc., exist. If there is in force in any area to which these rules extend, any Act, rule, regulation or by-law made under any law for the time being in force by the State or the local authority in respect of any of the matters for which provision is made in these rules, such rule, regulation or by-law shall to the extent to which :

(a) it contains provisions less irksome to the animal than those contained in these rules, shall prevail;

(b) it contains provisions more irksome to the animal than those contained in these rules, be of no effect.

16. On the basis of the above rules, it was contended that the dog cannot be killed in any way including at the Airport by any other method except that provided by rr. 8 and 10. Even if the Aircraft Act and the Airport Authority of India Act can be construed to confer a power to kill stray dogs, the provisions of those Acts will not prevail because the method of terminating the dog contemplated by the petitioner which may involve, if necessary, shooting a dog, contains provisions more irksome to the animals than those contained in these rules. Such a method, by virtue of Rule 13(b) (supra) would be of no effect. We are unable to accept this contention. Firstly, these rules which are framed by the Central Government in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are a piece of subordinate legislation which cannot curtail a provision of the Aircraft Act and Airport Authority of India Act and render them of no effect. Moreover, the rules do not contemplate the situation before this Court at all, namely, the possibility of the presence of a dog threatening lives or safety of hundreds of passengers.

17. In these circumstances, we must construe the rules as not exhaustive of the circumstance in which street dogs can be killed. The rules must be construed as illustrative of the circumstances in which such dogs may be put to sleep. Indeed, the right of every citizen to have his life protected, including the right to self-defence, cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, wherever an animal threatens the life of the human being it must be held that the human being has a right to protect his life, if necessary, at the cost of the life of the animal. We are therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Interveners.

18. Learned Counsel for the Interveners next relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998 dated 5th October, 1998. which appears to have afforded the basis for the framing of the aforesaid rules. In particular, the learned Counsel relied on Guideline No. 10, which reads as follows :

X. Killing of stray dogs :

(1) No stray dogs shall be killed as a rule subject to the exception of critically ill, violent, fatally injured or rabid dogs. The decision whether a dog belonging to any of these three categories needs to be put to sleep with the sole object of relieving it of the pain of such sickness, injury or rabids shall be taken by a penal of at least three doctors, one of whom will be the veterinary doctor appointed by the Animals Welfare Board of India at its own expenses.

(2) Violent, diseased and incurable ill and mortally wounded dogs and those capable of transmitting diseases as identified and diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian, to be killed, shall be euthanised during working hours specified by the BMC in the approved humane manner i.e. by administering Sodium Pentothal for adult dogs and Thiopental Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified veterinarian or euthantised in any other humane manner approved by the Animal Welfare Board of India. No dog shall be euthanised in the presence of another dog. The person responsible for euthanising shall make sure that the animal is dead, before disposal.

19. In the circumstances of the present case, we cannot consider the Guidelines framed by this Court as disabling the right of the petitioner to terminate the life of stray dog at the Airport. Indeed, in the said judgment of this Court an exception has been made in regard to violent and rabid dogs. In other words, this Court has permitted the killing of dogs which pose a threat to human lives. That is not quite a case in point since in that case, this Court was not called upon to consider the issue pertaining to the safety of human lives travelling in Aircraft. We do not, therefore, consider that judgment to be an impediment in the view we are taking, as we are dealing with a special case, i.e. at the Airport.

20. In the circumstances, we allow the petition as follows :

I. The Airport Authority of India, the petitioner, herein, shall not as a rule kill a stray dog except in emergent circumstances. Whether the circumstances are emergent, shall be decided by a specifically designated high ranking officer present at the Airport at any given point of time.

II. The petitioner shall designate a high ranking officer or officers for the purpose of deciding whether the situation calls for an extreme action of the killing of a stray dog in the area of Airport. Such officer shall have due regard to the perceived threat to the safety of passengers and Aircraft. The officer shall, after taking the decision and necessary action, briefly record the circumstances in which he was compelled to resort to termination of the dog's life.

III. The method of killing shall not be such as would cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal. Before killing, the petitioner shall consider all other methods of disabling the animal, such as catching of dogs, use of a dart-gun, or capturing it, etc.

IV. At any other time i.e. when there is no emergency, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 shall strictly comply with the Guidelines framed by this Court in the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998 elated 5th October, 1998 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.

V. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall strictly adhere to paragraph 6 of the interim order of this Court dated 18th April, 2001, which reads as follows :

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation \s directed to send its dog van to the Airport thrice in a week - on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The dog squad will catch the dogs which are noticed within the Airport premises or around it. These dogs shall be handed over to the non-governmental organisations, who will sterilise and explore the possibility of their adoption in families. Such of the dogs which are not adopted in families will be re-located in other localities.

The Municipal Corporation shall keep a complete record of the visits of this dog van to the Airport and the number of dogs captured. It shall also keep a record of the dogs handed over to the non-governmental organisations.

Similarly, the non-governmental organisations will maintain a complete record of the number of dogs handed over to them. They shall also keep record as to the number of dogs adopted by families with full particulars and the number of dogs re-located, giving the area in which they have been re-located.

21. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

22. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

23. Parties be given ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated as true copy by the Associate of this Court.

24. The learned Counsel for the Intervener - Viniyog Pariwar Trust has prayed for stay of our judgment and order delivered today. Having regard to the circumstances of the matter, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to stay our judgment and order for a period of eight weeks from today
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HAWK21M
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 8120
Location: Mumbai, INDIA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After MIAL takeover,The Number of Dogs on the Tarmac have drastically reduced Smile
regds
MEL
_________________
Think of the Brighter side !!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Nimish
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9736
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAWK21M wrote:
After MIAL takeover,The Number of Dogs on the Tarmac have drastically reduced Smile


Really? Wow - that's good. So what have MIAL done differently? I thought it was still AAI that was looking after the air-side infrastructure, or am I wrong there?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HAWK21M
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 8120
Location: Mumbai, INDIA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nimish wrote:
HAWK21M wrote:
After MIAL takeover,The Number of Dogs on the Tarmac have drastically reduced Smile


Really? Wow - that's good. So what have MIAL done differently? I thought it was still AAI that was looking after the air-side infrastructure, or am I wrong there?


The Staff are the same however under MIAL control.They have enforced the Reflective Jacket on Tarmac norm,& FOD Waste containers at locations.Bt def the Dog menance is almost not present at nights which used to be quite a problem earlier for taxiing aircraft in to the bay.
regds
MEL
_________________
Think of the Brighter side !!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mel, i can remember that there were plans to put electrical fences to keep dogs out ?(these febces were aupposed to give electric shocks that would just scare them- not kill). This was before MIAL was privatised. Has that been implemented?
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
HAWK21M
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 8120
Location: Mumbai, INDIA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've not noticed such Fences on the Domestic side yet.It was only a question of Raising the Fences & plugging all outlets.Smile

regds
MEL
_________________
Think of the Brighter side !!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Airliners-India Forum Index -> Aviation Law All times are GMT + 5.5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com