Local reporting places Mira-Bhayandar’s street-dog population at more than 30,000 and says the municipal corporation has designated 20 locations where the dogs may be fed. People who feed the dogs in any other location could now be fined between ₹500 and ₹5,000.
Twenty Feeding Points For More Than 30,000 Dogs
Mira-Bhayandar is in the state of Maharashtra and lies directly north of Mumbai; when the municipal corporation started setting out specific feeding areas in February 2026, local reports indicated that the number of street dogs in the city was over 30,000.
The authority stated that the new locations would eliminate unsanitary methods of feeding and assist in settling disagreements between the residents and the individuals who look after the community dogs; it was reported that the public had been invited to propose appropriate sites, and the programme was to be rolled out in stages.
Six months later the corporation’s General Body passed a policy which permitted action to be taken against people who were feeding dogs outside the authorised locations, they could be fined between ₹500 and ₹5,000, and it has also been stated that further legal action is permitted.
The fact that there are 20 locations catering to over 30,000 dogs means that there is about one approved feeding point for every 1,500 animals. The dogs will not gather at each location since street dogs are scattered all over the city; they have fixed territories, rely on different caregivers and can’t be expected to travel from one municipal ward to another in order to reach the nearest place where a person is legally allowed to leave food.
The figure is not a realistic distribution; it shows the gap between the policy as stated and the animals who live under it.
Regulating Feeding Is Not The Problem
There are valid reasons for controlling where and how community animals are fed.
Food must not be allowed to go bad. It should not be fed in a way that blocks roads, entrances or footpaths. Special care is needed in relation to sites that are used by children and vulnerable people. After providing the food, those responsible should take away the bowls, packaging and waste.
Taking responsibility for feeding not only benefits the dogs but also the broader community.
The legal framework in India acknowledges this point. According to Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules 2023, resident associations, apartment owner associations or local representatives are required to make arrangements for feeding the community animals, the arrangements to be such as to involve the people who currently feed and look after the animals.
A feeding point is not regarded as an arbitrary point marked on a municipal map; instead, its location must take into account the number and density of dogs in the area and at the same time reduce conflict with other people who use the space.
The Supreme Court elaborated on that approach in the order it issued on 22 August 2025, instructing municipal authorities to set up specific feeding areas in each municipal ward while taking into consideration the local population and the number of dogs present there; feeding of the dogs was to take place in those areas not elsewhere on the streets or in other public places.
The Court thus allowed municipalities to regulate the act of feeding and at the same time made it their responsibility to set up the infrastructure by means of which lawful feeding could go on.
Has the Municipality offered a feasible alternative?
MBMC publishes maps for 24 numbered wards, yet only 20 feeding locations have been designated. That is not enough to provide even one public feeding point in every ward before considering whether one location per ward could adequately serve a reported population of more than 30,000 dogs.
When the policy was challenged, the municipal veterinary officer stated that the 20 sites concerned those in the first phase and added that further ones could be included, which might take the total up to 40. The importance of that response lies in the fact that it recognizes the current provision might not be final.
Dog Desk Animal Action has not been able to find an official map or a full list from the local authority showing all the authorised locations, the area covered by each one, the number of dogs linked to it or the method used for selecting them.
How is a resident to be expected to know where feeding is allowed in the absence of that information? How is a carer to find out if a place exists within the dogs territory? And how can the public tell whether the 20 sites are properly spread out?
And Yet The Municipality Still Depends Upon The People It May Fine
The feeding arrangements described publicly still depend upon residents, volunteers and community carers supplying food to the dogs.
The provision of food depends on residents, volunteers and community carers, who also go to the dogs, keep an eye on them and spot those that need sterilisation or veterinary treatment.
The feeding arrangements described publicly still depend upon residents, volunteers and community carers, who go to the dogs, provide food, monitor their condition and identify animals needing sterilisation or veterinary treatment.
If a carer has been looking after dogs in the same area for many years, then telling that person to use a remote central location does not move the animals; it only separates the food from the dogs who need it.
A dog has no understanding of municipal boundaries or of enforcement notices; it will stay within the area where it knows how to rest, where it can find water and where it can avoid danger. If the food is removed from that area, the person looking after the dogs will have to decide between abandoning them and risking a fine.
The municipality has established regulations for an activity that thousands of animals rely on, without having shown that each affected neighbourhood has a realistic alternative.
A Feeding Point Must Exist In Practice
Just because a place has been approved administratively does not mean that it will become a functioning feeding point.
It has to be accessible, it has to be safe, it has to show how many dogs are nearby and it must allow their regular caregivers to get to them. It must not cause unrelated groups of dogs to be placed in the same area. It must have clearly defined feeding times, arrangements for the disposal of waste, and a visible sign which explains how the site should be used.
There also needs to be a procedure for altering a site if it turns out to be unsuitable.
Above all, the dogs associated with each location should be taken into account. Apart from providing nutrition, feeding networks can also enable authorities to identify unsterilised dogs, keep track of vaccination rates, locate injured animals and obtain a reliable overview of the population.
A well designed feeding system could thus enhance the city’s Animal Birth Control programme.
A system that is punitive and based on having too few locations might cause feeding to be carried out in secret and could undermine the kind of community relationships that are needed in order to manage the dogs effectively.
What Mira-Bhayandar Should Publish
The municipal corporation ought to publish the full resolution together with the legal basis for each level of fine before imposing the fines.
It must include a public map showing all the feeding points, the ward that each one serves, the date on which it became operational and the number of dogs that are expected to use it.
The authority ought to clarify the way in which carers were consulted, explain how the number of dogs and the way in which the areas are distributed influenced the process of selection, and state what action residents should take when there is no appropriate location available in their area.
It must also make public the number of warnings and fines that have been handed out, state which department is in charge of enforcement, and explain how a person can contest a fine that is inaccurate or unreasonable.
The timetable and the suggested locations should be made public if the number of feeding points is increasing from 20 to 40.
They are not requests for feeding without regulation; rather, they are the details needed to judge whether regulated feeding has been put into effect fairly.
The Numbers Must Meet Each Other
It is not possible to manage more than 30,000 dogs using 20 locations.
If the municipality thinks that designated feeding is necessary then it must construct a feeding network which is proportional to the number of dogs it is trying to regulate. There must be enough legal feeding locations to reflect both the size and geographical distribution of the dog population and these locations should be spread out in accordance with the dogs’ distribution. The feeding sites have to be in place before any penalties are imposed and the people who are currently looking after the dogs must take part in the decision about where the locations will be.
India is listed as a country in the crisis category on Dog Desk Animal Action’s Global Stray Dog Crisis Map since issues relating to collection, confinement, feeding, shelter capacity and individual accountability keep arising in various states and municipalities.
The reported dog population exceeds 30,000, while the municipality has identified only 20 locations where they might be fed. It must now explain how those figures are supposed to meet.
The authority has counted the dogs and therefore states that there are over 30,000 of them; it has also identified 20 locations where they might be fed; it now has to explain how those figures are to be brought together.
And it makes no sense to identify a lawful place where a dog can be fed if the dog cannot reasonably get to it.