Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GITA MITTAL, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
ANUP MITTAL (HUF) - PETITIONER
Versus
M/S. KANUNGO CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD AND ORS - RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) 8219/2015 & CM No.17255/2015
Decided On : 27-1-2016
The petitioner, a member of a cooperative housing society, challenged the society's decision to impose parking charges for additional cars beyond the one car parking space allotted to each member. The petitioner argued that he had a legal right to park multiple cars within the society's premises and that the society's measures to discourage parking of extra cars were illegal. The court held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to park multiple cars within the society's boundary and that the society's measures to discourage such parking were justified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a cooperative housing society, challenged the society's decision to impose parking charges for additional cars beyond the one car parking space allotted to each member. The petitioner argued that he had a legal right to park multiple cars within the society's premises and that the society's measures to discourage parking of extra cars were illegal. The society contended that the petitioner had no such right and that the measures were necessary to regulate the limited parking space available in the society.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to park multiple cars within the society's boundary and that the society's measures to discourage such parking were justified. The court found that the society's building plans, sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority, permitted parking of only 209 cars in the basement and that the petitioner had been allotted a single parking space in the basement. The court also found that the petitioner had been parking additional cars in the common areas of the society, which was in violation of the sanctioned building plan and caused inconvenience to other members of the society.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had a legal right to park multiple cars within the society's boundary? 2. Whether the society's measures to discourage parking of extra cars were illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to park multiple cars within the society's boundary and that the society's measures to discourage such parking were justified. The court found that the society's building plans, sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority, permitted parking of only 209 cars in the basement and that the petitioner had been allotted a single parking space in the basement. The court also found that the petitioner had been parking additional cars in the common areas of the society, which was in violation of the sanctioned building plan and caused inconvenience to other members of the society.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and upheld the society's decision to impose parking charges for additional cars beyond the one car parking space allotted to each member.
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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.
GITA MITTAL, J.
1. Perceptions that a person’s prosperity are relateable to his address and the vehicle he drives, has led to this paradox of people effecting property and vehicle acquisitions way beyond their real needs. The instant case manifests the mindless assertion of non-existent entitlements to accommodate such acquisitions despite the same being contrary to law, it adversely impacting constitutional rights of others, and resulting in environmental degradation. Perhaps illustrating the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he said :
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20th April, 2015 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No. 72/2014/DCT. By this order, the Tribunal set aside the Award dated 4th March, 2014 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 71 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (the ‘Act’ hereafter) whereby the claim of the petitioner herein had been upheld.
3. There is no dispute so far as the relevant facts are concerned and we briefly set out the same hereafter. A plot of land measuring 3.483 acres, bearing no.71, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi was allotted in the year 1990 to the Kanungo Cooperative Group Housing Society (‘Society’ hereafter) for construction of six residential blocks of 209 flats in eight storeys each. The plan of the Society was sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority permitting the construction and prescribing peripheral roads ranging from 6.5 meters to 7.5-8 meters width to enable circulation for the residents, their vehicles as well as emergency vehicles including fire tenders, police vehicles and ambulance.
4. The sanctioned building plans postulated parking in the basement. Originally, the plan permitted parking space for 115 cars and an equal numbers of scooters. The revised building plan, permitting parking of 209 cars in the basement of the society, was sanctioned on 14th April, 1999 by the Delhi Development Authority after a careful scrutiny in accordance with the building bye-laws framed under the Master Plan.
5. After completion of construction, allotment of flats to its member was effected by the society. The allotment letter contained the following clause :
“3. That subject to the covenants contained herein, to be strictly observed on the part of the member, the Society shall permit the member to use and occupy in its property one of the flats along with one car parking on the lease basis as a licensee simplicitor and shall not sell or lease or transfer or assign or part with possession of the said car park.”
Thus, each allottee was permitted only one car parking as a license and nothing beyond. This too was in the basement as per the sanctioned plan.
6. On 14th August, 2000, the petitioner came to occupy the flat no. 364 in the society as a tenant. He subsequently shifted tenancy to the flat no. 274.
7. On the 4th January, 2006, the petitioner purchased the flat no. 561 in the society on the terms and conditions set out in the allotment letter including the clause 3 afore-noticed. The society has placed before us a copy of the sale deed dated 4th January, 2006 executed by Shri Mahavir Prasad Aggarwal in favour of the petitioner with regard to the said flat “along with one underground car parking space in basement” situated in the layout plan of the society. Thus, the petitioner was fully aware right from the beginning that so far as car parking in the society was concerned, he had a bare license to use only one parking space in the basement of the building and no other right at all.
8. It appears that with the passage of time, after allotment, members of the society started acquiring additional cars, which they parked on peripheral roads causing inconvenience to other occupants. Some residents started permitting even non-residents/relatives to park cars in the s
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
