The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while hearing a petition challenging the layout plan of Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana, said that the construction of the hospital cannot be challenged on the ground that it will increase traffic pressure in the area, especially when multi-level parking has been planned by the state authority.
The court held that removal of the hospital in this case would violate the fundamental right to practice trade and profession under Article 19 of the Constitution.
This allegation was made in the petition
A bench of Justice Suresh Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said that the respondents are running Alchemist Hospital at the relevant site, where additional infrastructure will be added, and thus the right to practice trade and profession cannot be prevented through the present petition, unless there is a clear concrete damage to the rights of the petitioners.
The court also underlined the concern of the residents that the hospital will increase the traffic flow, which is said to be reduced through the plan of multi-level parking. The court said that if the fundamental right of the hospital was obstructed, it would be a serious injustice.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the layout plan of Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana, alleging that the residential area was changed to a nursing area and objections and suggestions were not sought from the affected residents.
The High Court commented during the hearing
The court, while examining the legal provision of the Haryana Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963, found that Sector-21 was not declared a controlled area under Section 4 of this Act, so there was no need to invite objections under Section 5.
The court also said that there is no evidence of any direct harm to the petitioners due to the change in the layout. Adding nursing home sites has been done for public welfare, which will meet the needs of the elderly and disabled persons.
The High Court dismissed the petition
Regarding the parking problem, the Haryana Urban Development Authority clarified that multi-level parking and additional footpaths would be constructed.
The court considered this solution satisfactory. The bench also said that the information about the e-auction of the plots was already given and the petitioners had the right to object at that time, but they did not do so, so now they cannot challenge this auction.
On the basis of all these facts, the court found that there is neither any unfairness nor any legal violation in the petition, hence the petition is dismissed.
