Fundamental Right To Health & Prompt Medical Care Well Attended To: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea To Quash Plan Carving Out Clinical Sites

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the Part Demarcation Plan/Sectoral Development Plan approved by the respondents to carve out clinic sites in Sector-17, Panchkula. A plea was also raised to quash the advertisement qua the e-auction of the clinic sites in Sector-17, Panchkula.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, “As such, the said provisionings inside the colony appears to reduce the necessity of patients travelling to long distances, thus to health centres concerned, rather to receive consultancy care giving services. If the said is the holistic purpose in the in-sector provisionings of consultancy services or consultancy care givings to the patients concerned, therebys the same also concomitantly reduces the trauma encumbered upon the patients concerned, to travel to long distances to receive consultancy services, at the already overloaded hospitals/medical centres concerned. Therefore, since therebys the fundamental right to health and to receive prompt medical care, thus becomes well attended to, as such, this Court finds no reason to omit to make deference vis-a-vis the impugned layout plan.”

Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma represented the Petitioner while Addl. A.G., Ankur Mittal represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner’s association is a registered society working for the social welfare of the local residents. The respondents had issued an advertisement for the e-auction of the residential/institutional properties on a freehold basis in various sectors of Panchkula Urban Estates on “as is where is basis”. The said advertisement included the e-auction of the plots/sites under the institutional category of Clinic Sites No. 4 and 5. The petitioner’s association members were allotted the residential plots in the year 2004.

It was averred that at the time of purchasing the plots, the petitioner-association was not informed that the area where their residential plots were carved out also includes the provision qua the institutional sites, i.e. clinic sites in front of their houses or in the same street. It was averred that the residents are already facing huge difficulties for properly accessing their homes located at the end of the street, which is permanently closed. The respondents had replied that no separate provision for parking has been made for the clinic sites. The petitioner association also made several representations to the respondents concerned, however, no action had been taken on the same.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “...no purported prejudice becomes encumbered upon the petitioner association, vis-a-vis its incorporeal rights, vis-a-vis the subject sites, as no cogent material in respect thereof becomes placed on record.”

It was noticed by the Bench that the impugned demarcation plan/sectoral development plan appeared to be made with an insightful vision, but for promoting the health of the citizens of the locality concerned. “The instant clinic sites, thus visibly augment the health concerns of the elderly citizens, as also of the ailing children. Consequently therebys naturally the right to life, as enunciated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also would become well furthered. As such, the impugned part demarcation plan/sectoral development plan, is in alignment with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and, does not require the same being quashed and set aside”, it said.

The Bench made it clear that the grievance that owing to heavy congestion of traffic in the locale concerned would overload the existing infrastructure was required to be initially raised at the stage when the members of the petitioner society had purchased their residential plots in the year 2004. This delay led to an inference that the petitioner association not only acquiesced to the layout plan, but also was estopped to challenge the said layout plan. “Resultantly, the instant belatedly raised motion appears to become clothed with an overload of malafides, thus to somehow deprive the respondents concerned, to subject the disputed sites rather for the purpose for which they became acquired by them”, it added.

The apprehension of the petitioner qua over-congestion was also obviated through the proposal of a twin level basement for parking being created on the subject sites. “Moreover, since the right to practice business and occupation is the fundamental right, to which the respondents concerned, are entitled, as they became allotted the clinic sites concerned. Therefore, the said fundamental right rather cannot be curtailed through the instant writ petition, unless accruals of demonstrable/palpable prejudice qua the incorporeal rights of the present petitioner, rather became cogently established”, it added.

The Bench observed that there is an open acquiescence by the petitioner association, to the validity of raising of the clinic institutions over the present disputed sites. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:046103-DB)

Appearance:

Peitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma, Advocates Vishal Sodhi, B.S.Mittal

Respondents: Addl. A.G. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Svaneel Jaswal, Sr. DAG, Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG Saurabh Mago, DAG Gaurav Bansal, AAG Karan Jindal, Advocates Deepak Balyan, Vicky Chauhan, Jasbir Singh Ahlawat, Bhargavi, A.P. Bhandari

Click here to read/download Order