Removing Hospital From Residential Area Because It Increased Traffic Violates Fundamental Right To Trade: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the construction of the hospital cannot be challenged on the grounds that it has increased traffic influx in the area, especially when multi-level parking is planned by the State authority. Removing the hospital in this case would be violation of the fundamental right to trade and practice profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "respondent...is running a hospital nomenclatured as Alchemist Hospital, at the relevant site, to which an augmented infrastructure would be added, therebys the said right to practice business and profession, rather cannot be curtailed through the instant writ petition, unless accruals of demonstrable palpable prejudice to the incorporeal rights of the present petitioners rather became cogently established."

The bench noted that, the concern of the residents that the hospital in the residential area will increase the flow of traffic, "has been declared to be mitigated, through a proposal for creation of a multi-level parking."

"Consequently, if yet the fundamental right to practice business and profession as endowed, vis-a-vis respondent (hospital), thus is fettered, therebys gross injustice would be wreaked upon...," it added.

The Court was hearing a plea challenging the layout plan of Haryana's Panchkula Sector 21, wherein it was alleged that impugned layout plan was converted from residential area into nursing area without inviting objections and suggestions from the affected residents.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that statutory framework under the Haryana Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963, and found that Sector-21, Panchkula was not officially declared as a "controlled area" under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the requirement to invite objections under Section 5 of the Act did not apply.

It further added that there was no direct evidence to show that the modification of the layout plan had caused any prejudice to the petitioners. The layout changes, which included the addition of nursing home sites, were found to be in furtherance of public welfare as they would cater to the needs of the elderly and disabled persons.

Regarding parking concerns, the respondent (Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP)) clarified that a multi-level parking facility and additional pavement space were planned to address the issue. The Court found this solution satisfactory.

The bench highlighted that since the sale of the subject sites through an e-auction was duly notified, the petitioners had the right to restrain the concerned respondents from conducting the public e-auction at the stage of publication of the e-auction notice. However, having waived their right to challenge, the petitioners cannot, at this stage, seek the quashing of the public e-auction.

In the light of the above, the Court found that there was no merit in the allegations of arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Title: Manish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 124

Click here to read/download the order