In a significant ruling promoting public health infrastructure, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition that sought to quash the Part Demarcation Plan/Sectoral Development Plan involving the allocation and e-auction of clinic sites in Sector-17, Panchkula.
The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that the provisioning of clinical facilities within residential areas advances the constitutional right to health and prompt medical care, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
COURT’S KEY OBSERVATIONS
“As such, the said provisioning inside the colony appears to reduce the necessity of patients traveling to long distances… Therefore, since thereby 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-à-vis the impugned layout plan.”
The Court emphasized that the move would especially benefit elderly citizens and children by providing accessible healthcare services within the colony and reducing the burden on already overcrowded hospitals.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petition was filed by the House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.), a group of residents, challenging:
- The inclusion of Clinic Sites No. 4 and 5 under the institutional category in HUDA’s e-auction advertisement.
- Lack of prior intimation at the time of plot allotment in 2004.
- Alleged absence of parking provisions and increased traffic congestion.
- Difficulties in accessing homes due to site placement at the end of a closed street.
- Despite repeated representations to authorities, the petitioners argued that no remedial action had been taken.
RESPONDENTS’ Defence
- Represented by Additional Advocate General Ankur Mittal, the respondents contended that:
- The plan aimed to enhance healthcare access locally.
- Residents had acquiesced to the layout since 2004.
- A twin-level basement parking structure was proposed to mitigate congestion.
- The fundamental right to practice the profession of the clinic site allottees cannot be curtailed without demonstrable harm.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court found no evidence of prejudice to the petitioner’s rights and held that their objections were delayed by over two decades.
“…no purported prejudice becomes encumbered upon the petitioner association, vis-a-vis its incorporeal rights… as no cogent material in respect thereof becomes placed on record.”
“The grievance… was required to be initially raised at the stage when the members… purchased their residential plots… the instant belatedly raised motion appears to become clothed with an overload of malafides…”
The Bench reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 includes access to health services and that institutional provisions in residential zones serve this public objective.
“The instant clinic sites, thus, visibly augment the health concerns of the elderly citizens, as also of the ailing children. Consequently, the right to life, as enunciated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also would become well furthered.”
FINAL VERDICT
The Bench found the petition lacking in merit and dismissed it, stating that the e-auction and site provisioning were lawful, constitutional, and in the public interest.
CASE DETAILS:
Title: House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:046103-DB
