HC upholds demarcation of Panchkula clinic sites, dismisses residents’ plea
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the demarcation of clinic sites in Sector 17, Panchkula, affirming that the move aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.
Dismissing a petition challenging the “sectoral development plan”, the Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri ruled that the establishment of clinic sites would enhance healthcare access for elderly citizens and ailing children, thereby reinforcing the right to health.
The court observed that the demarcation plan was devised with a clear vision to promote public health and wellbeing. It noted that the presence of medical consultancy services within the locality would significantly reduce the pressure on overburdened hospitals while ensuring that senior citizens and persons with disabilities do not have to travel long distances for basic medical consultations.
Rejecting the petition filed by a house owners association, the Bench held that the challenge was barred by delay and acquiescence, as the petitioners had purchased residential plots in 2004 despite the layout plan being approved in 2003. “The delay in raising objections implies acquiescence to the plan,” the court observed, ruling that the petitioner association was “stopped” from challenging the layout plan at this belated stage.
The Bench further asserted that the fundamental right to practice any profession or occupation, as guaranteed under the Constitution, extended to the allottees of the clinic sites. It clarified that the fundamental right of the clinic owners could not be curtailed, unless demonstrable prejudice was caused to the petitioners’ rights.
Addressing the petitioner’s contention regarding the alleged violation of the National Building Code, 2005, the court dismissed the argument, stating that no material had been placed on record to establish any inconsistency between the code and the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) Act. It held that the Chief Administrator, who approved the “sectoral development plan” had the statutory authority to do so.
The court dismissed the petition and directed that the deeds of conveyance should be executed forthwith in accordance with the law, if not done so far.
