Cooperative societies must frame equitable parking policies ensuring one dedicated slot per member.

The Petitioner, a senior citizen and resident of the Indian Bank Staff Cooperative Group Housing Society, approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 seeking directions for formulation of a common parking policy by the Society.

The Society’s residential complex comprised 120 apartments but had only 50 parking slots.

The Petitioner owned one car but had not been allotted a parking slot, while similarly placed senior citizens faced difficulty finding parking and certain residents were allegedly permitted to use multiple slots.

The Petitioner sought allotment of one parking slot, preferential consideration on account of his age, and a policy restricting residents with multiple vehicles from occupying more than one parking space.

On 9 July 2026, the Court referred the matter to mediation and asked the Society to consider framing a parking policy giving preference to senior citizens and persons with disabilities or other special needs.

The mediation subsequently failed.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but recognised that disputed factual questions concerning the number of available parking slots and the manner of framing the Society’s policy were unsuitable for direct determination in writ proceedings.

The Court referred to the remedy under Section 70, observing that although such proceedings could be long-drawn, the RCS ought to intervene in the present circumstances to facilitate a fair resolution.

The governing principle applied was that parking spaces in a cooperative housing society should be distributed equitably: ordinarily, one dedicated parking slot should be allotted to each member, surplus slots should be allocated on a need-based basis, and the concerns of senior citizens and persons with special needs should be taken into account.

The Court declined to adjudicate the factual dispute regarding the precise number of parking slots or to prescribe the Society’s complete parking policy itself, as those matters required consideration by the Society and the RCS rather than determination in writ jurisdiction.

However, given the Petitioner’s status as a senior citizen, the absence of any allotted parking space, the alleged allocation of multiple spaces to other residents, and the failure of mediation, the Court considered RCS intervention necessary to secure an equitable policy.

It therefore adopted the principle that each member should receive one parking slot, while any surplus should be distributed according to need, and directed the RCS to hear both sides and facilitate formulation of a formal policy.

The Society was required to make a specific car-parking space available to the Petitioner.

The parties were directed to appear before the RCS on 15 September 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

If no formal policy was framed within two months, the Petitioner was not to be disturbed from parking one car in a designated space to be identified by the RCS.

All rights and remedies of the parties were left open.