HC upholds order allowing crockery shop at coal depot site in Panchkula

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision allowing a coal depot site in Panchkula to be used as a crockery shop after ruling that the change aligns with the fundamental right to carry on business and ensures a more environmentally sustainable setting.

Dismissing Haryana Urban Development Authority’s (HUDA) challenge against a revisional authority’s 1999 order permitting the change, the court held that restricting business activity at the site to a coal depot would be impractical and financially unviable, given the shift in domestic fuel consumption patterns.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri asserted that the change of use did not adversely impact the locality. Rather, it fostered an eco-friendly environment by preventing potential carbon emissions from coal storage and handling. “The revisional authority has ensured the emergence of the requisite balances, inter-se the existence of an eco-friendly environment in the locality concerned, which otherwise would become impaired through the operation of a fuel depot,” the Bench observed.

Referring to the constitutional protection of the right to profession, the court stated that forcing the allottees to operate a coal depot despite its redundancy would infringe on their fundamental right to business. It also noted that since coal has been largely replaced by gas as a household fuel, running a coal depot was no longer a viable commercial proposition.

The case pertained to a site in Sector 7, Panchkula, auctioned to Amar Nath Jindal and Prem Lata Jindal in 1988 for a coal depot. The allottees later used it for a crockery shop and partially converted it into a residence, prompting a challenge by a third party seeking HUDA’s intervention. Following a show-cause notice, HUDA’s Estate Officer ordered the site’s resumption in 1997 after citing violations of allotment conditions. The allottees’ appeal before the HUDA Administrator was dismissed in 1998, but the revisional authority subsequently allowed the change of trade in 1999 while citing evolving commercial realities and legal feasibility.

HUDA challenged the decision, arguing that permitting such a change would set a bad precedent. The High Court, however, dismissed the contention after holding that each case must be assessed on its own merits. It upheld the revisional authority’s decision, which had mandated an additional price payment for the site’s altered use.

“The alteration is in tune with the fundamental right of the respondents to practice business and profession. If this right is fettered despite the change being environmentally suitable, it would unjustly impinge on their constitutional protections,” the court ruled while affirming the revisional authority’s order.

The judgment is significant as the court has settled a long-drawn dispute, reinforcing the principles of economic viability, sustainable development, and constitutional freedoms.