'Prompt Medical Care Is Fundamental Right': Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses To Quash Layout Plan Incorporating Clinic In Colony Over Claims Of Increased Traffic

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash a layout plan of a sector which included a doctor's clinic in the vicinity, observing that receiving prompt medical services is a fundamental right.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri noted, "when the consultancy services to be provided at the clinic sites, may become availed by the elderly people, senior citizens or disabled people, especially when in absence thereof, it would lead them to travel to long distances for receiving OPD consultancies."

The Court said that the facilities within the colony will reduce the need for patients to travel long distances to health centers for consultations and care and consultancy services within the area, helps lessen the burden on patients who would otherwise have to travel far to visit already crowded hospitals or medical centers.

By doing so, it ensures that the fundamental right to health and access to timely medical care is respected. Therefore, the Court found no reason to object to the proposed layout plan.

The petition filed by House Owners Welfare Association, sought quashing of the part demarcation plan/sectoral development plan passed in 2003 vide which clinic was carved out in the vicinity of sector 17, Panchkula and the petitioner also seeks quashing of the advertisement and the e-auction of the nursing home sites.

The Association argued that it was never informed that institutional sites or clinic sites can be carved out in front of the houses and all the residents are facing huge difficulty in accessing their homes located at the end of the street and the 5 metre road is not serving its purpose now. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the petitioner's case and opined that the demarcation plan appears to be prepared with an insightful vision and for promoting healthcare facilities to the people in the locality and it is in alignment with the article 21 of the constitution.

"The making of the impugned demarcation plan/sectoral development plan, obviously appears to be made with an insightful vision, but for promoting the health of the citizens of the locality concerned. The reason for so stating becomes embodied in the factum, that 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," it added.

On the traffic issue, the Court said, the same was need to be raised when the plots were purchased in the year 2004 and the petitioner was duly aware about the said layout plan.

Furthermore, the bench opined, "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."

In the light of the above, the plea was rejected.

Title: House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana,

Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana for the respondents-State.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate and Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4-HSVP.

Mr. Jasbir Singh Ahlawat, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 8.

Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate for Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No. 9.

Click here to read/download the order