Punjab & Haryana High Court: Right To Business Can’t Be Curtailed Unless Accruals Of Demonstrable Palpable Prejudice To Incorporable Rights Become Cogently Established
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Writ Petition, seeking to quash the revised or replanned layout plan and to prohibit or restrict the Haryana State from confirming the e-auction qua Nursing Homes.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the right to practice business and profession cannot be curtailed unless accruals of demonstrable palpable prejudice to the incorporeal rights become cogently established.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition, seeking to quash the revised or replanned layout plan and to prohibit or restrict the Haryana State from confirming the e-auction qua Nursing Homes.
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri observed, “… since the right to practice of business and occupation is the fundamental right, to which respondent No. 5 is entitled, as respondent No. 5 is running a hospital nomenclatured as Alchemist Hospital, at the relevant site, to which an augmented infrastructure would be added, therebys the said right to practice business and profession, rather cannot be curtailed through the instant writ petition, unless accruals of demonstrable palpable prejudice to the incorporeal rights of the present petitioners rather became cogently established.”
The Bench said that unless the statutory provisions omit to entail a necessity upon the executive to adhere to the principles of natural justice, thereby if the executive decision is yet made but without adherence being made to the principles of natural justice, thereupon, the rule of prejudice becoming encumbered upon the aggrieved, who however is also not a party to the lis, nor is a party to the executive decision making process, thus emerges to the forefront.
Advocate Akshay Jindal appeared for the Petitioners while Addl AGs Ankur Mittal, Svaneel Jaswal, Sr. DAG Pardeep Prakash Chahar, and Senior Advocate Puneet Bali appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioners were the allottees/subsequent purchasers of small residential houses and the said houses were adjoining and opposite to the released land where a multi-specialty hospital under the name and style of Alchemist Hospital was being run. The houses of the Petitioners were situated on a 9-meter road (C-Road) and owing to a huge rush of patients in the said hospital, there always remained parking problems. It was averred that the development plan of Sector-21 since the allotment of plots to the Petitioners was depicting that a nursery school site and a primary school rather would become located adjoining the subject land.
The Petitioners came to know qua an e-auction being conducted regarding the primary school site and nursery school site by converting them into three nursing home sites. Subsequently, the Petitioners procured the impugned development plan wherein it was mentioned that vide endorsement, the nursery and primary school sites have been replanned as nursing home sites. It was also proposed to develop a multiple level parking on the said site. The Petitioners further received an information from the office of Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) that the highest bids of nursing home sites were given by the Alchemist Hospital. The Petitioners contended that the said conversion was required to be declared as completely flawed.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Since any purported accrual of prejudice to the incorporeal rights of the petitioners arising from there being an increased flow of traffic on the relevant sectoral roads concerned, when for the reasons (supra), has been declared to be mitigated, through a proposal for creation of a multi-level parking. Consequently, if yet the fundamental right to practice business and profession as endowed, vis-a-vis respondent No. 5, thus is fettered, therebys gross injustice would be wreaked upon co-respondent No. 5.”
The Court was of the opinion that since the sale of the subject sites through an e-auction was duly notified, thereupon when at the stage of publication of the e-auction notice, the Petitioners had the right to restrain the Respondents concerned, from conducting the public e-auction, but they having waived or abandoned the said challenge, thereby the Petitioners cannot, at this stage, ask for the quashing of the public e-auction, besides they cannot ask for the concomitant relief, that there has been any arbitrary alteration in the layout plan.
“If the said is done, thereupon the apposite contract, as entered into, through the issuance of a letter of allotment to the successful bidder(s) concerned, rather would become breached, besides therebys, both the principles of promissory estoppel and the principles of legitimate expectation, as become favourably attracted vis-a-vis respondent No. 5, thus would also become violated, especially when the said principles have been accepted by the official respondents concerned, to be endowable to co-respondent No. 5”, it added.
The Court said that both the public e-auction of the subject sites, besides the prior thereto conversion would become amenable to be declared as arbitrary and capricious.
“Though, Section 79 of the Act of 1963 refers to the procedure for making amendments to the initially drawn layout plan, by the local authority, which includes issuing notices and inviting objections. However, Section 61(b) of the Act of 1963, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, defines the Local Development Area, as the area declared as such, under Section 62(1) of the Act of 1963”, it further noted.
The Court held that the Petitioners have failed to prove on record qua any prejudice being caused to them.
“Moreover reiteratedly, the nurses in the nursing homes to be established at the nursing home sites would receive training at the adjoining hospital, whereupon when their nursing skills would become enhanced. Moreover also, since the nursing home site is a facility for the residential care of elderly people, senior citizens, or disabled people, and, also when the said nursing home sites are to be also used by those patients, who do not require being admitted in a hospital, but require constant care and supervision”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that since the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right, which includes the right to access the nursing homes, thereby also the said right, as endowed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but naturally has been taken adequate care in the drawings of the impugned conversion.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Manish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:035329-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Akshay Jindal, Bhavya Vats, and Mannat Sibal.
Respondents: Addl AGs Ankur Mittal, Svaneel Jaswal, Sr. DAG Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, DAGs Saurabh Mago, Gaurav Bansal, AAG Karan Jindal, Advocates Ankur Mittal, Kushaldeep Kaur, Saanvi Singla, Siddharth Arora, Gunjan Rishi, Gagandeep Singh, and Hanima Grewal.
