Introduction
The Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected a plea challenging the inclusion of a doctor’s clinic in a residential layout plan. The Court emphasized that timely access to healthcare is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It ruled that the layout plan ensures better access to medical services, especially for senior citizens, disabled individuals, and children.
Case Background
The House Owners Welfare Association of Sector 17, Panchkula, filed a petition seeking to quash a 2003 sectoral development plan. The plan included clinic sites within the colony. The association also challenged a related advertisement and the e-auction of nursing home sites. The residents claimed they were not informed about the inclusion of institutional sites in front of their homes.
The petitioners argued that the 5-metre-wide street had become inadequate. They complained that the clinic obstructed easy access to homes located at the end of the street.
Petitioner’s Stance
According to the association, setting up a clinic within the residential area caused inconvenience to residents. They claimed the plan was unclear at the time of purchasing their homes in 2004. The presence of the clinic, they said, added to traffic woes and disrupted the peaceful living environment.
Court’s Ruling
The Court observed that health services are vital to ensure the right to life. It highlighted that having clinics within residential areas reduces the burden on larger hospitals. It also cuts travel time for patients, especially those who are elderly or have disabilities.
The bench noted that the development plan was created with a clear vision. It aimed to enhance public health by ensuring easy access to medical consultancy and care.
On the traffic concerns, the Court said the issue should have been raised when the plots were purchased. Buyers were already aware of the layout plan at the time.
Final Verdict
The Court dismissed the petition. It concluded that the layout plan, including clinic sites, supports the right to health under Article 21. The Court also reaffirmed that the clinic owners have a fundamental right to practice their profession. Therefore, there was no valid reason to quash the layout or cancel the auction.
The ruling strengthens the legal position that accessible healthcare is an integral part of a dignified life.
