P&H High Court: Removing Hospital Over Traffic Concerns Violates Fundamental Right to Trade

Post By 24law
March 21, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that a hospital's construction in a residential area cannot be challenged solely on the grounds that it increases traffic influx, especially when state authorities have planned multi-level parking solutions. The Court held that removing the hospital would violate the fundamental right to trade and practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that the hospital has the legal right to continue its operations and even expand its infrastructure. The Court stated: "Respondent...is running a hospital nomenclatured as Alchemist Hospital, at the relevant site, to which an augmented infrastructure would be added, therebys the said right to practice business and profession, rather cannot be curtailed through the instant writ petition, unless accruals of demonstrable palpable prejudice to the incorporeal rights of the present petitioners rather became cogently established."

Also Read: NCLT Mumbai: Order Admitting CIRP Cannot Be Recalled In Absence Of Fraud Or Misrepresentation

Addressing concerns raised by local residents about increased traffic congestion, the Court took note of the planned multi-level parking facility and held that it sufficiently mitigates the issue: "The concern of the residents that the hospital in the residential area will increase the flow of traffic has been declared to be mitigated, through a proposal for creation of a multi-level parking." The bench further observed: "Consequently, if yet the fundamental right to practice business and profession as endowed, vis-a-vis respondent (hospital), thus is fettered, therebys gross injustice would be wreaked upon..."

Case Background

The case arose from a writ petition challenging the layout plan of Panchkula Sector 21, Haryana. The petitioners alleged that the original layout plan was unlawfully modified from a residential area into a nursing home zone without inviting objections and suggestions from affected residents. The petitioners contended that the layout change violated statutory provisions, particularly the Haryana Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963. They argued that no objections were invited from the public as required under Section 5 of the Act and that the presence of the hospital was creating severe traffic congestion in the area.

High Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Sector 21, Panchkula Is Not a "Controlled Area"
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Haryana Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963 and concluded that Sector 21, Panchkula was never declared a "controlled area" under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the requirement to invite public objections under Section 5 did not apply.

2. No Evidence of Prejudice to Residents
The Court found that there was no direct evidence to suggest that the modification of the layout plan had caused any prejudice to the petitioners. Instead, it held that the changes were made in the public interest: "The layout changes, which included the addition of nursing home sites, were found to be in furtherance of public welfare as they would cater to the needs of the elderly and disabled persons."

3. Addressing Parking and Traffic Concerns
The respondent, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), clarified before the Court that a multi-level parking facility and additional pavement space were planned to address traffic and parking concerns. The Court accepted this solution, stating: "Since multi-level parking is being developed, the concerns regarding traffic cannot justify interfering with the hospital’s right to operate."

4. Residents Waived Their Right to Challenge the E-Auction
The Court noted that the petitioners had an opportunity to object to the public e-auction of the nursing home sites but failed to do so. The bench observed: "Since the sale of the subject sites through an e-auction was duly notified, the petitioners had the right to restrain the concerned respondents from conducting the public e-auction at the stage of publication of the e-auction notice. However, having waived their right to challenge, the petitioners cannot, at this stage, seek the quashing of the public e-auction."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Declines Further Probe in Death of Swami Saswathikananda: “No Suspicious Circumstances, Accidental Drowning Confirmed”

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition and the final order stated:

44.In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is hereby dismissed.

45. The letter of allotment, if not issued, be forthwith issued, and, also the deed of conveyance, if not executed, be ensured to be forthwith lawfully executed between all concerned. Moreover, all the requisite entries, if required, be made in the relevant registers/records maintained by the HSVP.

Advocate representing the parties:

For Petitioners: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate, Ms. Bhavya Vats, Advocate and Mr. Mannat Sibal, Advocate.

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