COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No. 118 Ram Mehar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the construction of a new PHC is not in the interest of the petitioners/residents of village Baroda Mor, who have approached this Court by filing the instant petition. The site of the new PHC is low-lying and next to a cremation ground. Besides being flood prone, it is at a distance of about one and a half kilometer from the residential area. It has also been contended that the petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing a petition, CWP-8862-2026, on the same cause of action which was disposed of on a statement made on instructions from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gohana, that the Government had CWP-18656-2026 (O&M) -2- constituted a Committee to look into the matter and in the meanwhile, construction work on the new site had been stopped. Despite the statement, the impugned communication has been issued deciding to go ahead with the construction which does not spell out any reason and deserves to be set aside. Still further, it has been contended that there is already a PHC existing in the village which can be refurbished to serve the interest of the villagers instead of constructing a new one, that too at a distance and in a low-lying area. Such a PHC would not serve any purpose.

Learned State counsel, on the contrary, points out that the decision to construct a new PHC has been taken in the interest of the villagers. In fact, it will cater to two villages - Baroda Mor, Gohana and Khanpur Khurd. The Gram Panchayats of these two villages were consulted and the matter was discussed in detail in a meeting held subsequent to the order, dated

23.03.2026, passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. This fact has been recorded in the impugned letter dated 04.05.2026 itself. After the discussion it was found that continuing with the construction at the new site was in the administrative and financial interest of the State and, thus, the decision to continue with the same was taken. He also pointed out that a few other villagers had earlier approached this Court on the similar cause of action by filing a petition, CWP-11364-2025, inter alia for setting aside the notice dated 28.03.2025, whereby the respondents had invited tender for construction of the new PHC building, which is in question in the instant case as well. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. Accordingly, the petitioners have no right to seek a similar direction at this stage. CWP-18656-2026 (O&M) -3-

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

It remains undisputed that the respondents have decided to construct the new PHC to cater the needs of two villages, i.e., Baroda Mor and Khanpur Khurd. The decision to that effect was taken by the Government and the orders for carrying out the construction were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat dated 25.01.2022 and 02.05.2023, pursuant thereto a notice, dated 28.03.2025 , inviting tender for constructing the PHC was issued. These were challenged by some of the villagers by filing CWP-11364- 2025 which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated

08.08.2025, by recording as under:

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the file carefully but do not find any ground whatsoever to cause interference in this matter. It is a matter of record that CWP-10629-2025, titled 'Wazir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another', was filed by said Wazir Singh claiming to be Sarpanch of village Baroda Mor. Said writ petition was not filed on behalf of Gram Panchayat but by Wazir Singh in his personal capacity. Prayer in said writ petition was for setting aside notice inviting tender dated 28.03.2025, as is the prayer in present petition. Grievance was also raised that Health Care Centre, tender for which has been floated, should be constructed at a site other than the designated site i.e. the earlier site so identified for this purpose. Similar arguments were raised. Said writ petition was dismissed on 22.04.2025 being devoid of any merit. Relevant portion of order dated 22.04.2025 reads as under:- "2. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, we do not find any cause to interfere in the matter. Petitioner is CWP-18656-2026 (O&M) -4- Sarpanch of Village Baroda Mor, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat and grievance raised is that Health Care Centre, tender for which has been floated, should be constructed at a site other than the designated site.

3. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from Mr. Ashok Kumar, SDE, Gohana submits that land required for construction of Health Care Center is 1.5/2 acres whereas the site upon which the petitioner seeks is less than 1 acre.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any ground whatsoever which calls for interference in this matter. It is for the authorities to choose an appropriate site keeping in view the various relevant factors. Learned counsel for petitioner in any case is unable to point out any such glaring discrepancy which calls for interference by this Court.

5. Reference by learned counsel to the report dated

21.11.2019 is irrelevant in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the State. No other argument addressed. "

5. Though, learned counsel for petitioners has argued that there are several other factors, which were not raised in CWP- 10629-2025, due to which present writ petition should be entertained, we do not find any such ground which impels us to cause interference. It is apparent that in case of any incorrect or illegal resolutions, remedies therefor are available and present writ petition is not the answer thereto. Moreover, there is no plausible ground or reason to cause interference on the same cause of action in this subsequent writ petition at the instance of present petitioners, who are also citizens of village Baroda Mor.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to cause interference in this matter. This writ petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. CWP-18656-2026 (O&M) -5-

6. Apparently, the issue has been considered by the Division Bench. Also, merely because the area is stated to be low-lying or at some distance from the village abadi or next to the cremation ground, cannot be a reason for this Court to interfere with the matter; that too at this stage when the construction has already started and challenge to the Government’s decision to set up the PHC and start construction by inviting tenders has already been declined by this Court vide the order aforementioned. Besides, the respondents have come up with valid reasons for continuing with construction of the PHC at the new site, which find mention in the impugned letter, dated

04.05.2026, itself. The letter reads: In the matter under consideration, it is written to you that, in compliance with your instructions, a joint committee was formed under the chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, consisting of the Police Department, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohana, Civil Surgeon, Sonipat, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mundlana, and Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads). The committee reported that on 09.04.2026, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, attended by the Police Department, Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohana, Civil Surgeon, Sonipat, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mundlana, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads), and representatives of the two concerned Gram Panchayats. The matter was discussed in detail during the meeting. Following the discussions, it became clear to the committee that substantial funds had already been spent by the government at the site where the Primary Health Center building is being constructed. Therefore, getting the construction work done at the said site CWP-18656-2026 (O&M) -6- itself seems more appropriate from practical, economic and administrative point of view.

In this view of the matter, this Court finds no ground to entertain the petition and it stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

01.07.2026 Mehak (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable?