Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri upheld the sector's layout plan including a doctor's clinic, emphasizing that access to prompt medical services is a fundamental right. 

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court held this in the matter of House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others (2025). 

What was the Background of House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others? 

• The House Owners Welfare Association filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the Part Demarcation Plan/Sectoral Development Plan dated 11th December 2003 that carved out clinic sites in Sector-17, Panchkula. 
• The petitioner also sought quashing of the advertisement dated 12th July 2017 regarding e-auction of clinic sites No. 4 and 5 in Sector-17, Panchkula. 
• The petitioner's association members were allotted residential plots in Sector-17, Panchkula extension, in 2004 through a draw of lots on freehold basis. 
• At the time of purchasing the plots, the petitioner-association claimed they were never informed that institutional sites (clinic sites) would be established in front of their houses or on the same street. 
• The petitioner alleged that the street where the clinic sites were planned had only one entry point with no exit on the other end, creating accessibility issues. 
• The petitioner contended that as per the National Building Code, 2005, no building attracting large crowds should be planned in an area with less than 12 meter width of access. 
• The association made representations to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula regarding their concerns, but no action was taken on their representations. 
• The petitioner claimed that no separate provision for parking had been made for the clinic sites, which would exacerbate congestion issues. 
• The petitioner argued that since there were already three nursing home sites in the vicinity, no additional clinic sites were required even in public interest. 
• The petitioner claimed that the sectoral plan required prior sanction and approval from the State Government as per Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (HSVP) Act, which was allegedly not obtained. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that no purported prejudice was encumbered upon the petitioner association regarding its incorporeal rights over the subject sites, as no cogent material was placed on record to establish the same. 
• The Court noted that the impugned demarcation plan was made with an insightful vision to promote the health of citizens in the locality, thereby furthering the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• The Court held that the grievance regarding traffic congestion should have been raised in 2004 when the members purchased their plots, and the delay in challenging the 2003 layout plan indicated acquiescence by the petitioner. 
• The Court observed that the provision of a twin-level basement for parking would adequately address any concerns regarding congestion on the sectoral road. 
• The Court emphasized that the right to practice business and occupation is a fundamental right of the respondents who were allotted the clinic sites, which cannot be curtailed without demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner's rights. 
• The Court noted that clinic sites providing consultancy services to elderly, disabled, and other patients within the sector would reduce the necessity of traveling long distances to healthcare centers. 
• The Court rejected the argument regarding violation of the National Building Code, 2005, as neither the code was placed on record nor was there evidence that it had an overriding effect over the HSVP Act. 
• The Court concluded that the petitioner's acquiescence to the validity of establishing clinic institutions on the disputed sites and the absence of any conflict with existing laws warranted dismissal of the petition. 

What is Article 21 of Indian Constitution? 

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: 
• No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. 
• Article 21 provides two rights: Right to life and right to personal liberty. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the 'heart of fundamental rights'. 
• The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning. 
• The Court referred to this provision when noting that the clinic sites would augment health concerns of elderly citizens and ailing children, thereby furthering the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21. 

What is Section 13 of the Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977 (HSVP Act)? 

• "The objects of the Authority shall be to promote and secure the development of all or any of the areas comprised in the urban area and for that purpose, the Authority shall have the power to acquire by way of purchase, transfer, exchange or gift, hold, manage, plan, develop and mortgage or otherwise dispose of land and other property, to carry out by itself or through any agency on its behalf, building, engineering, mining and other operations, to execute works in connection with supply of water, treatment and disposal of sewage, sullage and storm water, control of pollution and any other services and amenities and generally to do anything, with the prior approval, or on direction, of the State Government, for carrying out the purposes of this Act." 
• The petitioner argued that prior sanction and approval of the development/sectoral plan was required by the HSVP before implementing it, which they claimed was not obtained. 
• The petitioner also contended that the impugned plan was approved by the Chief Administrator and not by the State Government as allegedly required under this section.