Prompt Medical Care Is a Fundamental Right’: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses to Quash Sectoral Plan for Clinics Despite Residents Objections Over Traffic and Access
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that no demonstrable prejudice had been caused to the rights of the petitioner association regarding the clinic sites in Sector-17, Panchkula. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the sectoral development plan and the subsequent e-auction of clinic plots. It directed the lawful execution of conveyance deeds between the concerned parties and mandated the requisite entries in the records maintained by the Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP).
The petitioner, a registered welfare association, approached the Court seeking quashing of the Part Demarcation Plan/Sectoral Development Plan dated 11.12.2003 and the advertisement dated 12.07.2017 concerning the e-auction of Clinic Sites No. 4 and 5 in Sector-17, Panchkula. The association contended that its members, allotted residential plots in 2004, were unaware of the proposed institutional use of adjacent sites, including clinics.
The petitioner claimed the plots were acquired for residential purposes without any prior intimation of institutional development in proximity. They argued the clinic sites were introduced in a street with inadequate road width—5 meters—and a dead-end design, lacking proper infrastructure for additional traffic or public access. The layout's classification as a ‘C’ road prohibited heavy vehicles, adding to the concern over congestion and emergency access.
Further, the petitioner relied on provisions of the National Building Code, 2005, asserting that the code mandates a minimum road width of 12 meters for buildings attracting public access. The association submitted representations to the authorities from 2011 onwards, requesting removal or conversion of the clinic sites to residential use, but received no favorable response. Under the Right to Information Act, it was revealed that no separate parking provision had been made for the clinic sites.
The petitioner’s legal counsel stated that inconvenience and safety risks posed by institutional activity in a narrow residential lane. It was argued that some private respondents (allottees of the sites) had expressed willingness to convert the institutional plots to residential use, and that no building plans had been sanctioned. It was also asserted that the plan lacked statutory approval under Section 13 of the HSVP Act, as it had only been sanctioned by the Chief Administrator, not the State Government.
In contrast, counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 (HUDA/HSVP) submitted that the layout and zoning plans were duly prepared and approved under statutory provisions. The clinic sites, they argued, were designated in the original 2003 sectoral plan to cater to health needs of Sector-17 and surrounding areas. The clinics were to provide only consultancy services without inpatient or nursing home functions, thereby not burdening infrastructure significantly.
The respondents maintained that the planning was completed before plot allotments to residents, and the petitioner was aware of the clinic sites’ designation at the time of purchase. Private respondents contended the petition was filed to obstruct legitimate execution of the sector plan, despite their bona fide acquisition of clinic sites through e-auction.
The Bench observed in italics that “no purported prejudice becomes encumbered upon the petitioner association, vis-à-vis its incorporeal rights, vis-à-vis the subject sites, as no cogent material in respect thereof becomes placed on record.”
The Court noted that the plan was developed “with an insightful vision, but for promoting the health of the citizens of the locality concerned,” observing that “the instant clinic sites, thus visibly augment the health concerns of the elderly citizens, as also of the ailing children.” The Court aligned the plan with the “right to life, as enunciated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Addressing the petitioner’s claim of congestion and infrastructure overload, the Court observed the challenge was delayed, stating “the said delay leading to an inference that therebys the petitioner association not only acquiescing to the layout plan, but also brings home an inference, that as such, the petitioner association becoming estopped to challenge the said layout plan.”
On the issue of road congestion, the Court recorded “a twin level basement can be constructed for the parking purposes” and found the concern about overcrowding “already been adequately redressed by the HSVP.”
The Bench further upheld the fundamental rights of the respondents: “the right to practice business and occupation is the fundamental right, to which the respondents concerned, are entitled.” It held that “there is no demonstrable accrual of prejudice to the incorporeal rights of the present petitioner.”
The judgment also reflected on the practical benefits of in-sector consultancy clinics: “the said provisionings inside the colony appears to reduce the necessity of patients travelling to long distances,” stating it “concomitantly reduces the trauma encumbered upon the patients concerned, to travel to long distances to receive consultancy services.”
On the applicability of the National Building Code, the Court observed that it was not placed on record and that its provisions were not shown to override the HSVP Act. The Court noted the statutory authority of the Chief Administrator in approving the sectoral plan, stating “when no material has been placed on record, that the approval granted to the impugned sectoral plan by the Chief Administrator, rather is not well founded upon the apposite statutory empowerment.”
The Court, finding no merit in the petition, directed as follows:
“In aftermath, after finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed.”
It further stated:
“The allotment letters are stated to be already issued to the allottees concerned. Therefore, 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.”
It also disposed of any pending applications:
“The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana; Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate and Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Jasbir Singh Ahlawat, Advocate, Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate for Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate
Case Title: House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) vs. State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:046103-DB
Case Number: CWP No. 16181 of 2017
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Justice Vikas Suri
[Read/Download order]
