HC trashes petition against nursing home sites in Panchkula

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the revised layout plan for Sector 21, Panchkula, which re-designated nursery and primary school sites as nursing home sites. The petitioners had sought quashing of the re-planned layouts dated May 10, 2012, and October 25, 2021, along with a prohibition on the e-auction of three nursing home sites.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri rejected the plea, holding that there was no violation of statutory provisions requiring public objections before the revision. The court noted that the petitioners failed to establish any prejudice caused by the changes.

Addressing concerns over parking issues, the Bench pointed to the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran’s (HSVP) plan for a multilevel parking facility over 2,468 square meters and a 9-meter-wide pavement for common parking.

Referring to the fundamental right to healthcare under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court observed that the nursing home sites would cater to senior citizens, disabled individuals, and patients requiring constant care outside hospitals. It also noted that nurses working in the proposed nursing homes would receive training at an adjoining hospital.

The court also ruled that the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, were inapplicable to the case, as the mandatory notification under Section 4 of the Act was never issued. The court held that the absence of such a notification foreclosed any statutory obligation to adhere to principles of natural justice, including the requirement to invite objections from affected parties before finalising the plan.

The Bench asserted that the principles of natural justice were fundamental. At the same time, their breach must result in demonstrable prejudice for relief to be granted. In the case before the Bench the Act did not apply due to the lack of a Section 4 notification declaring the area as a “controlled area”. As such, no prejudice could be claimed on grounds of non-adherence to natural justice. The petitioners failed to establish any infringement of their incorporeal rights over the disputed sites.

Dismissing the petition, the court directed authorities to immediately issue allotment letters and execute the conveyance deeds, ensuring all requisite entries in official records.