Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:

1. The petitioner, a member of a cooperative housing society, challenged the society's decision to impose parking charges for additional cars beyond the one allotted parking space. The court found that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to park multiple cars within the society's boundary, as his parking license was limited to a single space in the basement (!) (!) .

2. The sanctioned building plans, approved by the relevant authorities, permitted parking for only a specified number of vehicles (209 cars in the basement). Parking additional vehicles in common areas or peripheral roads was deemed illegal and constituted encroachment, which could be subject to recovery of costs by the society (!) (!) (!) .

3. The society's measures, including levying parking charges and penalties for extra vehicles, were held to be within its powers as a welfare scheme aimed at regulating limited parking space, ensuring safety, and protecting the environment. These measures were considered justified and for the benefit of the entire community (!) (!) (!) .

4. The court emphasized that the rights and privileges of members are governed by the society's bye-laws and the relevant statutory provisions. Members do not have an enforceable right to park multiple vehicles beyond the licensed space, nor can they appropriate common areas for exclusive use (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The importance of maintaining unobstructed circulation routes for emergency access was underscored. Parking in common areas beyond sanctioned limits poses serious safety risks, including hindering emergency response and potentially causing disasters, as illustrated by references to safety standards and past incidents (!) (!) (!) .

6. The environmental impact of excessive vehicle parking, including pollution and reduction of open space, was recognized as a constitutional concern under the right to a healthy environment. The society's efforts to limit parking to sanctioned spaces align with environmental protection principles (!) (!) (!) .

7. The society's authority to levy charges, including penalties for unauthorized parking, was found to be within its powers as a decision of the general body, aimed at promoting welfare and safety. Such resolutions are binding unless proven to be malafide or beyond the society’s statutory powers (!) (!) (!) .

8. The petitioner’s conduct, including withholding material facts and failing to challenge the legality of parking restrictions at the appropriate time, was viewed unfavorably. His long-standing payment of charges for extra parking and subsequent default did not entitle him to relief (!) (!) (!) .

9. The court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the society's resolutions and measures, and imposed costs on the petitioner for wasting judicial resources. The costs were apportioned among the respondents and the government, emphasizing the importance of lawful compliance with sanctioned plans and society rules (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the judgment reinforces that members of cooperative societies do not possess an inherent right to park multiple vehicles beyond their licensed entitlement, especially when such parking violates sanctioned plans, safety norms, and environmental considerations. The society's actions to regulate parking are within its statutory authority and aimed at the welfare of all members (!) (!) (!) .

This summary encapsulates the legal principles, statutory interpretations, and societal considerations as reflected in the document, without referencing specific case law.