Poultry Farm Can't Operate 50 Metres From Residential Area Despite Having Less Than 5,000 Birds: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that siting criteria for poultry farms apply independently of the number of birds being reared, and that no poultry farm—small or large can be permitted to operate within 500 metres of a residential area.
The Court directed the immediate closure of a poultry farm situated barely 50–60 metres from residential houses in District Kangra.
The Court reiterated that according to Article 21 of the Constitution “residents had an enforceable right to live in a clean, hygienic, and safe environment which could not be compromised for commercial activity and right to livelihood cannot overweigh the right to life of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons”.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Therefore, a poultry farm of whatever size obviously has to be 500 metres away from the residential area so that there is no danger whatsoever either of foul smell or of any kind on account of such like poultry farms.”
The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, filed writ petition challenging the operation of a poultry farm allegedly set up in violation of environmental and siting guidelines.
The petitioner contended that the farm was located dangerously close to residential houses and water sources, causing foul smell, health hazards, and environmental degradation.
In response, the respondent contended that the the poultry farm was established after a valid No Objection Certificate was taken from the Gram Panchayat and was being operated strictly in accordance with the guidelines.
He further contended that the poultry farm never had more than 5,000 birds at a time.
The Court observed that the nearest domestic area is approximately 50 meters away from the front and 20–30 m from the back side of the poultry farm and at Present there were 6000 poultry birds were being reared by the owner.
The Court further observed the inspection report also recorded lack of pollution-control mechanisms and absence of burial pits for dead birds.
Rejecting the respondent's argument that siting norms depend upon the number of birds and that siting criteria has to be read independently and could not vary based on marginal numerical differences.
Thus, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed authorities to ensure closure of the poultry farm.
Case Name: Chaman Lal v/s State of H.P. through its Secretary (Panchayati Raj) and others
Case No.: CWP No. 13958 of 2024
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.Naresh K. Sharma,Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State.
Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No. 7.