Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, I would say, rightly believes in the sententious adage that courts are open to every citizen who comes and complains that law is being broken. Certainly so long as he has a genuine case for consideration we will hear it. I have no doubt that no one shall forbid him access. He is not to be turned away on the question of locus standi. 2. I certainly believe it as a matter of high constitutional principle that if there is a ground for supposing that a government department or public authority declines to enforce law and that offends or injures thousands of citizens then any of those offended or injured can draw to the attention of this court and seek to have the law enforced and this court in its discretion can grant whatever remedy is appropriate. To my mind, it is clear on principle that once a public duty exists in statute, there should be a means of enforcing it. In our constitutional set up a public duty mandated by a statute can be enforced, I think by the high prerogative writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which has always been available against public officers to see that they do their public duty as ordained by the statute. This remedy is available against government departments or any person or body set up by statutory authority affecting the rights of individuals. We live in an age when legislature Central and State has very often placed statutory obligations and duties important and essential on government departments and public functionaries certainly for the benefit of the public but quite often provided no remedy in the statute in the hands of the public for the breach of them. The question is whether can a member of the public come to the court and draw the breach of such a public duty to its attention ? I feel absolutely no difficulty to answer this query. My answer is an emphatic Yes. This position is well forted by Supreme Court decisions. Certainly the party who wants mandamus must show that he has sufficient interest to be protected. 3. I feel absolutely no difficulty to answer this query. My answer is an emphatic Yes. This position is well forted by Supreme Court decisions. Certainly the party who wants mandamus must show that he has sufficient interest to be protected. 3. There also I have no doubt that every responsible citizen has an interest in seeking that the law is enforced and that is sufficient interest in itself to warrant his applying for a mandamus to see that it is enforced. But all this I would emphasise, is only in the last resort when there is no other remedy reasonably available to secure that the law is obeyed. I also hasten to add "that this remedy is a discretionary remedy and the discretion of the court extends to permitting an application to be made by any member of the public, though it will refuse it to a mere busy body who is interfering in things which do not concern him. Certainly the petitioner before me is a responsible citizen who shows a genuine interest and concern in seeking a law intended for the benefit of the public is enforced. He feels that the government is failing in enforcing that law. But what is the material and facts placed before this Court for a case of mandamus. It is sleek. It is skeletal and sketchy. The averments are imprecise. They lack pointedness for a court to be convinced of a substantial breach of duty to enforce the law by the government or a statutory functionary. The averments are vague and ominous. No attempt to secure that the law is obeyed is seen stated in the petition. Of course the petitioner unfolds a sordid problem. The petitioner spotlights the canine menace of the proliferation of vagrant dogs and the insipid, wishy-washy implementation of the law for preventing the straying of dogs and other animals in the streets, in a general and extemporary manner. 4. It is not at all necessary to be told for it is so primary and fundamental for a government under our Constitution that it should take all possible means to protect the life of its citizens from the horrifying danger posed by mad dogs. No authority or functionary responsible for it will be excused for allowing the free parade or the shrill horrifying mournful cry of mad dogs in the city streets or village lane. No authority or functionary responsible for it will be excused for allowing the free parade or the shrill horrifying mournful cry of mad dogs in the city streets or village lane. The petitioner paints the harrowing and horrid sight of scabby emaciated but vicious, stray dogs many of them rabid, moving freely in our streets and suggests that the government should allow people having licence for using rifles to shoot down stray dogs in public places. 5. I am sure that the government will not spare any effort to enforce the law relating to prevention of straying of dogs and animals in public places and streets tenaciously and effectively even without a writ of mandamus issued from this court. I hope that the government will bring down to nil the incidence of canine rabies by adopting an action plan, positive and productive to combat that alarming increase of rabies deaths spoken to by the petitioner. This Court feels certain that government will not hesitate to take immediate steps for immunising domestic pets and an effective programme of vaccination of all dogs and the total extermination of stray dogs through humane means of elimination. 6. The petitioner tells me that this Court should direct the government to ensure adequate supply of antirabic vaccine to meet the requirements of all situations. I should say a welfare State shall never fail in this duty and I am sure that the government will take up the matter very seriously and rectify the omissions referred to in the petition if they are true. 7. I may make it explicitly clear, lest I should be misunderstood, that this Court is not taking "I see no evil" attitude in this case and this Court never thinks that the nature of omissions referred is the petition are beyond the pale of the review jurisdiction of this Court. But the revealed facts do not support a case of an immediate mandamus. 8. I plainly trust the government and believe that this case will serve as a rouser and an eye opening for the government to redact and revamp their existing means of elimination of stray dogs and animals found in streets and to take all appropriate and speedy measures to extirpate the mad dog menace brought to light by the petitioner. 8. I plainly trust the government and believe that this case will serve as a rouser and an eye opening for the government to redact and revamp their existing means of elimination of stray dogs and animals found in streets and to take all appropriate and speedy measures to extirpate the mad dog menace brought to light by the petitioner. The original petition is dismissed.' Send a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the O.P. to the first respondent. Dismissed.