JUDGMENT This petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the petitioner who alleges himself to be concerned with the welfare of canines and being a dog lover. The petitioner has referred to the previous petitions filed in this Court and has particularly referred to the Dog Shows/Obedience Contests which are permitted to be held by the authorities and to one such show being organized by the respondent No.8/Oudh Kennel Club on 21st and 22nd inst. 2. Submissions as sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner are that such Dog Shows are aimed at maximizing economic gain of the respondent No.8 and the Government guidelines are given a go-bye. It is also submitted that because of flouting of the guidelines with regard to Dog Shows, the spread of Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) is not being checked and such virus has, in fact, led to the death of several Asiatic Lions as reported in the month of January, 2015. It is further submitted that the Animal Welfare Board of India has specifically issued directions for not permitting such Dog Shows without appropriate permission and yet, the Dog Show is being sought to be held by the respondent No.8. The counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Quarantine Certificate as is necessary, particularly in respect of the imported dogs, is not being insisted upon by the respondent No.8, though it is requirement of the guidelines. 3. The respondent No.8 has put in appearance and has filed a short counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that in fact, the present petition is a proxy petition filed at the behest of one Dr. Sandeep Kumar Paul and another Mr. Probir Kumar Dey, who had been the members of Kanpur Canine Club and the said Dr. Paul was debarred by the Club by means of resolution dated 18.08.2013. It is submitted that immediately after his expulsion, the said Dr. Paul filed a petition in this Court for restraint orders against Dog Shows. However, the said petition bearing No.54827 of 2013 was dismissed at Allahabad. Thereafter, another petition [No.61400 of 2013] was filed by one Suraj Pal at the behest of Dr. Sandeep Kumar Paul claiming the same relief. It is submitted that immediately after his expulsion, the said Dr. Paul filed a petition in this Court for restraint orders against Dog Shows. However, the said petition bearing No.54827 of 2013 was dismissed at Allahabad. Thereafter, another petition [No.61400 of 2013] was filed by one Suraj Pal at the behest of Dr. Sandeep Kumar Paul claiming the same relief. The order passed in the said petition dated 11.11.2013 has been referred by both the parties that reads as under: - "The grievance in this public interest litigation relates to the animals which are displayed in Dog Shows across the State. The submission of the petitioner is that this is resulting in the spread of Canine Distemper Virus especially because the authorities are not insisting on the production of an appropriate certificate documenting that each of the participating animals has been duly vaccinated. Having regard to the limited nature of the grievance, we are of the view that the petition can be disposed of by directing the Secretary, Local Self Government, Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Veterinary Officer to take due cognizance of the grievance which has been made in this PIL and to issue appropriate directions thereon so as to obviate the complaint which has been made in this case. If a representation is made within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, necessary action shall be taken thereon expeditiously preferably within a period of two months thereafter. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. The case of the respondents is that after passing of the order aforesaid, guidelines have been framed for organizing Dog Shows by the Director, Animal Husbandry on 10.01.2014; and have been modulated as was considered reasonable and requisite by the order dated 31.12.2014. It is submitted by the respondent No.8 that they are adhering to the guidelines for the show scheduled on 21st and 22nd inst.; and the necessary permission has been granted by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Lucknow by the order dated 03.11.2015. It is also submitted during the course of arguments that the respondents are organizing such shows on the permission granted and in accordance with law. 5. It is also submitted during the course of arguments that the respondents are organizing such shows on the permission granted and in accordance with law. 5. During the course of submissions, when reference was made to a communication dated 06.11.2015, said to have been sent by the Animal Welfare Board of India to the District Magistrate, Lucknow and Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow against such a dog show, we have queried the learned Standing Counsel in regard to the response on the said communication, if any. 6. The learned Standing Counsel, after taking instructions, submits that such communication is not found to have been received in the office of District Magistrate, Lucknow. 7. The counsel for the contesting respondent, i.e., respondent No.8 has, however, invited attention of this Court to an order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court on 31.03.2015 in MP No. 1 of 2015 in WP No. 9281/2015 and another order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.2566 of 2015 to submit that it has been held by various Hon'ble High Courts that non-approval of show by the Animal Welfare Board of India shall not fetter the right of the person concerned to organize and conduct the dog shows. The counsel has also referred to the order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of The Kennel Club of India vs. The Union of India and others to submit that the Animal Welfare Board of India could only advice the Government on the matters stated in Section 9 of the Act and it is for the Central Government to give effect to those matters by making relevant rules. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has emphasized on the contentions that the present petition is a proxy petition at the behest of persons referred in the reply and further that the petitioner, while seeking a writ of Mandamus, has not even chosen to make a representation to the authorities concerned. 8. As at present, we are keeping all the questions and objections sought to be raised in this matter open for consideration at the appropriate stage. 8. As at present, we are keeping all the questions and objections sought to be raised in this matter open for consideration at the appropriate stage. However, looking to the variety of submissions made, it appears just and proper to extend an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.4-Animal Welfare Board of India as also respondent No.5-Central Zoo Authority who are not represented before the Court. 9. Therefore, let notices be issued to the said respondents returnable in four weeks. 10. So far the prayer for interim relief in the present matter is concerned, we are clearly of the view that when the show in question has already been notified for 21st and 22nd inst., i.e., tomorrow and day-after-tomorrow, any intervention by the Court at this juncture may not serve the public cause and rather, it may result in more inconvenience. Thus, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the interim order in this matter at the instance of the petitioner at this juncture. Suffice it to observe that otherwise the authorities concerned are supposed to ensure holding of the show in accordance with law. 11. Subject to the observations foregoing, the prayer for interim relief at this juncture is declined. The stay application stands rejected. 12. As at present, we are not making final comments on any of the submissions of the parties and all the submissions/objections are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage. Needless to reiterate that the requirements of law are supposed to be examined by the authorities concerned for compliance. 13. List the matter after four weeks with complete service report. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.