Right to life v. right to livelihood: Why Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered immediate closure of Kangra poultry farm

Observing that the right to livelihood cannot overweigh the right to life and people have the right to live in a clean and hygienic environment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered closure of a poultry farm in Kangra district after finding that it was operating barely 50 metres away from residential homes.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel allowed the plea of a man seeking directions to shut a poultry farm 50 metres away from his house.

The court held that the right to livelihood of the poultry farm owner cannot prevail over the right to life of the petitioner and other persons residing in the near vicinity of the poultry farm.

“The residents of nearby area have a right to live in a clean and hygienic environment and obviously, none can reside in an area, 50 metres away wherefrom, there is a poultry farm where thousands of birds are being reared,” the court held.

The petitioner had alleged that the poultry farm owner had obtained NOC for opening the farm in contravention to the guidelines for opening such a farm.

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, alleged that the farm was established in contravention of Central Pollution Control Board guidelines, which mandate that poultry farms should be located at least 500 metres away from residential zones and 100 metres from drinking water sources.

It was alleged that waste water from the farm was being discharged in the nearby drains (Image generated using AI)

He also claimed that authorities concerned failed to act despite repeated complaints and inspection reports confirming the proximity of the farm to houses and village roads.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was smell of birds and excreta all around the shed which was badly affecting the environment of the area.

He also submitted that slaughtering activity was being carried out in the poultry farm and waste water was being discharged in the nearby drains. It was alleged that inspection reports were being submitted to the contrary, which were completely contrary to the factual position, as was existing at the spot.

On the other hand, senior counsel appearing for the poultry farm owner argued that the farm was set up and was being run strictly in consonance with the guidelines in force.

He further submitted that the farm owner was earning his livelihood by engaging himself in the business of poultry and the petitioner, who is his relative, was unnecessarily harassing him.

The court noted that it was undisputed that the poultry farm was in close vicinity to the residential area, being about 50-60 meters away from the house of the petitioner.

On perusing the inspection report the court noted that the poultry farm was near to the village link road approximately 50 metres away, 300-350 metres away from the water source and the nearest domestic area was approximately 50 metres away from the front and 20-30 metres away from the back side of the poultry farm.

The court highlighted the findings on the inspection report that “presently 6000 birds are being reared by the owner.”

“In light of the fact that in the month of July, 2024, 6000 birds were found being reared in the poultry farm of the private respondent which has not been denied by the private respondent and rather the said respondent has admitted the contents of Annexure P17, obviously, the poultry farm near the residential area cannot be allowed to operate,” the court held.

The court, therefore, ordered closure of the poultry farm while giving liberty to set up a poultry farm 500 metres away from residential area, if the respondent-owner wished to run a farm.