Noting a legislative vacuum in the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, the Court also directed the UP Government to frame a formal grievance mechanism for the resolution of such disputes by a competent authority.

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by four residents of Sarvoday Apartment, Gomti Nagar Vistar, Lucknow.

Case in brief

The petitioners challenged the RWA's decision to close 6 of the 10 gates on the premises, which, they alleged, affected residents' movement and hence, violated fundamental rights under Artilce 19.

They also alleged that illegal parking occupies more than 50% of the road, resulting in traffic congestion on the premises due to the RWA's arbitrary decisions.

Furthermore, it was alleged that parking fees are being charged by the RWA and the vehicles of persons who do not pay the parking fees are clamped and locked and Rs.500/- per day is extracted from the residents and their guests.

The very constitution of the RWA was also questioned in the plea, on the ground that it was constituted without holding any elections.

The RWA, on the other hand, said that the society was duly registered on 29.03.2023 under the Society Registration Act, 1860, and that elections were held on 12.02.2023, after which it was reconstituted.

It was further stated that petitioners no.1 and 2 are residing in Gomti Nagar and using the premises for commercial purposes for which notices were issued by LDA to them for violation of Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

High Court's observations

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the High Court observed that once an elected body is in place and manages all the common areas, repairs, and the grant of common facilities to the residents, the RWA is “fully empowered to take all the decisions in accordance with the bye-laws”.

The Court added that once parking areas have been notified, then certainly any person or guest who parks a vehicle in an area other than the places designated for parking can certainly be said to be indulging in unauthorized parking and appropriate action can be taken by the RWA in this regard.

The Court also opined that reasonable restrictions can be imposed even by the State as per Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India, and merely because a few gates of the apartment premises have been closed, the same doesn't affect the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(d).

Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in such cases, the Bench said that it is the collective responsibility through the RWA to manage the affairs of the society, and if its decisions are not acceptable to certain individuals, the same can not be raised in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"Such disputes ordinarily should be resolved within the R.W.A. itself, which is a democratic body and there should be sufficient space for giving due notice and considering the concerns of persons having separate ideas and views which are contrary to the resolution passed by such association", the bench noted.

However, upon perusing the 2010 Act, the Court took note of a critical gap. While Section 22(2) provides an appeal to the Development Authority against specific actions, there is no express statutory remedy for general grievances regarding gate closures, excessive parking fees, traffic congestion, and unhygienic conditions.

Observing that there "should be some grievance redressal mechanism/system", the Court directed that this aspect be placed before the State Government.

The UP Government has been asked to "consider and pass appropriate orders under Section 27(1) of the Act, 2010 for making provisions for the resolution of disputes by the competent authority". The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Akash Shukla, Saumya Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent(s): C.S.C., Adnan Hashmat, Hari Om Pandey, Kumar Ayush, Namit Sharma, Ratnesh Chandra, Ravindra Kumar

Case Title - Sunil Kumar Jain And 3 Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 410