Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

P&H HC Directs Gram Panchayat to Construct Road for Emergency Medical Aid; Frivolous Petition Costs Imposed on Sarpanch

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has directed a Gram Panchayat to construct a road for emergency medical aid, emphasizing the constitutional obligation to provide convenient access to medical facilities. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Gram Panchayat Badaliyan, challenging the construction of the road for an unauthorized occupant. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari.

The petitioner argued that the road construction, directed by the Collector of the revenue district, was intended solely for the personal benefit of the unauthorized occupant, respondent No. 9. The Gram Panchayat contended that the road should benefit the entire village and had passed a resolution opposing the construction.

Addressing the arguments, the court stated that the Gram Panchayat had a constitutional duty to provide road access for emergency medical aid to the villagers. It emphasized that the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, encompassed the duty of the State to ensure convenient access, including ambulance roads, for medical emergencies.

The court held that even if the road construction primarily benefited a single individual, it did not provide sufficient grounds for the Gram Panchayat to resist the Collector's directions. It noted that providing road access to every villager, including a solitary homestead, was essential to fulfill the right to life. This would enable timely medical care by facilitating ambulance services to reach any citizen in need.

Dismissing the writ petition, the court deemed it frivolous and possibly motivated by malafides. It imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Sarpanch (head) of Gram Panchayat Badaliyan, who filed the petition. The Sarpanch was directed to deposit the costs with the Treasurer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the constitutional duty to prioritize the right to life and ensure accessibility to essential services, particularly in emergency situations. The court's decision underscores the obligation of Gram Panchayats to provide roads for emergency medical aid and discourages the filing of frivolous petitions, emphasizing the potential consequences for those involved.

Date of Decision : May 08, 2023

GRAM PANCHAYAT BADALIYAN vs THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TO GOVT. PUNJAB AND ORS.

 

Similar News