The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that receiving prompt medical treatment is a fundamental right, refusing to quash a layout plan of a residential sector that included a doctor’s clinic. The Court emphasized that easy access to healthcare within residential colonies must be protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri stated:
“When the consultancy services to be provided at the clinic sites, may become availed by the elderly people, senior citizens or disabled people, especially when in absence thereof, it would lead them to travel to long distances for receiving OPD consultancies.”
Read also: High Court Slams Haryana Govt for Arbitrary Land Acquisition, Awards Rs 5 Lakh Compensation
The case arose from a petition filed by the House Owners Welfare Association. The petition challenged a part of the sectoral development plan of 2003, through which a clinic site was marked in Sector 17, Panchkula. The association also sought to quash the advertisement and e-auction related to the nursing home sites.
The Association argued that:
- They were not informed that institutional or clinic sites could be demarcated in front of their homes.
- The presence of the clinic was causing access issues to homes located at the end of the street.
- The 5-metre-wide road was now proving insufficient for smooth access due to increased traffic.
However, the Court rejected the plea after hearing the arguments. The judges noted that the demarcation plan was:
“Prepared with an insightful vision, and for promoting healthcare facilities to the people in the locality.”
“The making of the impugned demarcation plan/sectoral development plan, obviously appears to be made with an insightful vision, but for promoting the health of the citizens of the locality concerned. The reason for so stating becomes embodied in the factum, that the instant clinic sites, thus visibly augment the health concerns of the elderly citizens, as also of the ailing children. Consequently therebys naturally the right to life, as enunciated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also would become well furthered.”
The Court emphasized that establishing clinics within residential areas would:
- Help people, especially the elderly and differently-abled, avoid travelling to far-off and already overcrowded hospitals.
- Lessen the burden on healthcare infrastructure in other areas.
- Ensure that timely medical consultation is available close to home.
With regard to the traffic concern, the Court said this issue should have been raised at the time of plot purchase in 2004, as the layout plan was already public and known.
Additionally, the Court addressed the right to profession of those operating clinics, stating:
“Since the right to practice business and occupation is the fundamental right, to which the respondents concerned, are entitled, as they became allotted the clinic sites concerned.”
The bench concluded that the proposed layout aligns with constitutional rights and the broader public interest in accessible healthcare. It found no legal grounds to intervene or cancel the development plan.
In the light of the above, the plea was rejected.
Title: House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana,
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana for the respondents-State.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate and Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4-HSVP.
Mr. Jasbir Singh Ahlawat, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 8.
Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate for Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No. 9.
