The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday stayed the operation of Haryana’s ‘stilt-plus-4 (S+4) floor’ policy for residential plots after holding that the state apparently prioritised revenue over public safety while ignoring basic infrastructure realities.Coming down heavily on the state’s approach, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry observed: “It appears that Haryana merely to earn more revenue has put the safety and security of members of general public at stake.”The Bench added that the state and its functionaries gave a go by to all “important aspect of conducting `infrastructure capacity audit’ before implementing the S+4 floor policy” while turning a Nelson’s eye towards the desperate shortage of infrastructural requirement in Gurugram city.“It thus seems that the state has abdicated its constitutional duty of ensuring clean and healthy urban environment for the citizens of Gurugram,” the Bench added. The interim order came during the hearing of a public interest litigation. Among other things, the PIL-petitioner had challenged notification dated July 2, 2024, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department. It permitted the construction of S+4 floors on residential plots — raising the earlier cap of S+3 floors — and also introduced a composition mechanism even where building plans had not been approved.Clarifying that the stay was being granted without expressing a final opinion on the policy’s legality, the Bench asserted: “Since, the arguments are taking long time to conclude, it is deemed appropriate by this court, at this stage, without commenting on the validity of the impugned order or notification to pass interim directions.”Road reality vs policy pushA crucial factor that weighed with the court was the stark mismatch between planning norms and ground realities. During the final hearing, the Bench took note of photographs prima facie showing narrow internal roads in DLF Phase-I, Sector 28, Gurugram. This led to the appointment of a local commission to verify the actual road width.The report revealed that while the prescribed width of internal roads was 10 to 12 metres, the “motorable road area available for plying of traffic and pedestrians is only 3.9 metres to 4.8 metres.” Referring to the causes, the Bench observed: “This shrinkage is attributed to various reasons, which essentially are lack of adequate infrastructure of sanitation and sewerage, over-population, defective town planning, inadequate garbage disposal, blocking of aquifers by indiscriminate paving of roads, rampant construction activities thereby preventing recharging of groundwater etc.”Policy under scannerThe petitioner alleged that the government petitioner while passing the impugned order dated July 2, 2024, should have considered the report regarding S+4 floor policy submitted by an expert committee, recommending the formulation of a standard operating procedure. “Only thereafter, the proposal of stilt-plus-4 floor policy could be adopted”, it was added.Taking note of the submission, the Bench asserted: “The report of an expert committee reveals the concern was that in the absence of any infrastructural back-up, any permission to increase the number of floors would lead to additional burden over the existing infrastructure of the city of Gurugram, which is on the verge of crumbling with increased use by a larger population (residing on the 4th floor) without adequate available infrastructural capacity, such as sewage, drainage, STP, congestion of traffic and pedestrians on road and internal roads, flooding of various low-lying areas (which has become a commonfeature of Gurugram city) etc”.Before parting with the order, the Bench stayed “the effect and operation of the impugned order or notification” till April 8 –– the next date of hearing.