$~5 
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
Date of decision: 3rd September, 2026 Uploaded on: 7th September, 2026 
# CNR No. DLHC010288142026 
+ W.P.(C) 9019/2026 
VIKRAMARTHANDAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Saini, Adv. 
versus 
INDIAN BANK STAFF COOPERATIVE 
GROUP AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Pandey, Adv. for R-1. 
CORAM: 
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH 
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN 


Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 
1. 
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 

2. 
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to Respondent No.1­Indian Bank Staff Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) to formulate a common parking policy in a time-bound manner 

3. 
The case of the Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, is that he is facing difficulty in finding a parking slot in the Society. It is stated that the residential complex of the society comprises 120 residential apartments, however, only 50 parking slots have been allotted. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not been allotted any parking slot, and he owns one car. Similarly placed 




senior citizens are also made to struggle to find even one parking slot and 
other members are being permitted to have multiple parking slots. 
4. 
It is prayed that a parking slot be allotted to the Petitioner, and that he be accorded appropriate preference in the allotment process, having regard to his age. It is also stated that the residents of the flats having multiple cars ought not to be permitted to park more than one vehicle within the Society, and that, even in respect of the common parking area, only one parking space per flat ought to be allotted. 

5. 
On the previous date i.e., 9th July, 2026, the Court had considered the matter and ld. Counsel for the Society had sought time to seek instructions in the matter. The Court directed as under: 


“[...] 
7. 
In the opinion of this Court, the matter may be resolved amicably between the parties. 

8. 
Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to enable the parties to explore an amicable resolution. The Society may also consider formulating an appropriate policy governing the allotment of parking spaces, with due preference being given to senior citizens, including the Petitioner, as well as other residents who may have disabilities or other special needs. 

9. 
List before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 15th July, 2026 at 11.am.” 


6. 
In terms thereof, the Court considered that the matter be resolved 

amicably and, accordingly, the matter was referred to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for amicable resolution. 

7. 
Today, ld. Counsels for the parties submit that the mediation has failed. 

8. 
The Court has considered the matter. The issue in this case relates to a parking dispute. The prayer is for formulating a common parking policy in a time-bound manner. 

9. 
This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot go into the factual issue as to how many parking slots are available and the manner in which the policy ought to be framed by the Society. Instead of relegating the Petitioner to avail remedies under Section 70, which could be long-drawn, in the opinion of this Court, the RCS ought to intervene in such matters and enable a fair policy being framed for ensuring parking slots are made available in an equitable manner. The concerns of Senior citizens ought to be borne in mind as they ought not to be made to struggle. One dedicated parking slot for each of the members should be allotted by the Society and any surplus slots ought to be used on a need-basis. If the Society’s Managing Committee is not acting in a fair manner, the RCS ought to intervene and resolve the matter. 

10. 
Accordingly, in the facts of this case, the following directions are issued: 

(i) 
It is directed that the RCS shall hear the Petitioner and the Society’s Office Bearers and enable them to frame a formal parking policy in terms of the directions above. A specific car parking space shall be made available to the Petitioner. 

(ii) 
Let the Petitioner and the Society’s Office Bearers appear before the RCS on 15th September, 2026 at 11:30 AM. 






(iii) If a formal parking policy is not framed within a period of two months, the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from parking one car in a designated space, which shall be decided by the RCS. 


11. 
The petition is disposed of. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 

12. 
All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. 



PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE 

VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 
aj/sm