Introduction:

In the case of House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed a petition challenging the inclusion of a clinic site in the layout plan of Sector 17, Panchkula. The petitioners, represented by the House Owners Welfare Association, sought to quash the demarcation plan that allocated space for a clinic, arguing that it would lead to increased traffic congestion and was implemented without proper consultation.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The Association contended that residents were not informed about the inclusion of institutional or clinic sites in front of their houses. They expressed concerns about significant difficulties in accessing homes located at the end of the street, emphasizing that the existing 5-meter road was inadequate for the increased traffic anticipated due to the clinic.

Respondents’ Defense:

The State of Haryana and its representatives argued that the demarcation plan was devised with the foresight of enhancing healthcare accessibility for the community. They highlighted that the clinic would provide essential medical services, particularly benefiting elderly residents and those with mobility challenges, by reducing the need to travel long distances for consultations.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri, upheld the demarcation plan, emphasizing that the establishment of the clinic aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing the right to health. The court noted that the clinic would offer prompt medical services to residents, especially the elderly and disabled, thereby reducing the necessity of traveling to distant health centers.

Addressing the traffic concerns, the court observed that such issues should have been raised when the plots were purchased in 2004, as the layout plan was already in place and known to the residents. Furthermore, the court recognized the fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, affirming that the respondents have the right to establish the clinic.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the inclusion of the clinic in the sector’s layout plan was a well-considered decision aimed at promoting public health and was in accordance with constitutional provisions.