Ghaziabad, Nov. 5 -- The Uttar Pradesh government has informed the Allahabad High Court that addressing the monkey menace requires a comprehensive policy decision involving multiple departments and more time for deliberation. The explanation was given on October 31 during a court case started by residents Vinit Sharma and Prajakta Singhal from Raj Nagar in Ghaziabad, who claimed that the rapidly growing monkey population in the area was causing more conflicts between humans and monkeys. The state's standing counsel submitted instructions from the joint secretary of the UP government, stating that a preliminary meeting had already been held with officials from the forest, environmental, and climate change departments and that the matter needed further coordination before a policy could be finalised. However, the division bench headed by chief justice Arun Bhansali noted that the two-month period sought by the state was "substantially long". The bench directed the respondents to treat the issue with "some priority" and granted four weeks to take the necessary steps. Meanwhile, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), a respondent in the case, filed an affidavit clarifying that the responsibility for controlling the monkey population rests with local urban bodies, municipal corporations, municipal frameworks, and the district administration, and not with the Board. The affidavit further explained that Rhesus Macaques were removed from the schedules of protected wildlife under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 2022, which came into force on April 1, 2023. Consequently, the species no longer falls under the purview of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The Board also requested that its name be removed from the list of respondents. During an earlier hearing on September 19, the court impugned the principal secretary of the state urban development department as respondent number 1A, directing the official to detail steps taken or proposed to ensure that local bodies fulfil their responsibilities under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959, and the UP Municipalities Act, 1916. In a rebuke, the court had observed although "all respondents agree that the monkey menace does exist and is creating havoc with the lives of the public, none is prepared to take responsibility", adding that "each department is seeking to shift responsibility to another."...