The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with the internal decisions of a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) governing a residential apartment complex in Lucknow, holding that matters such as gate management, parking regulation, and maintenance of common areas primarily fall within the authority of a duly elected RWA. At the same time, the Court highlighted the need for a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism to address disputes between apartment owners and RWAs.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Sunil Kumar Jain and three other residents of Sarvoday Apartment, Sulabh Awas, Gomti Nagar Vistar, Lucknow. They challenged several decisions taken by the Sarvoday Sulabh Apartment Residents Welfare Association (RWA), alleging that the association had acted arbitrarily.
According to the petitioners, the RWA had closed six out of ten entry gates, leading to inconvenience for residents. They also objected to parking charges, vehicle clamping, penalties for non-payment of parking fees, and the use of private cranes to remove parked vehicles. The petition further questioned the legality of the RWA itself, alleging that it had been constituted without holding elections.
In response, the RWA informed the Court that it had been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that elections had been held before its registration. The Court accepted this explanation and rejected the challenge to the association's constitution.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench observed that once a Residents Welfare Association has been lawfully elected, it is responsible for managing common facilities in accordance with its bye-laws. This includes regulating parking, maintaining common areas, and taking legal action where necessary to enforce its resolutions.
The bench observed,
“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 R.W.A. in this regard.”
Addressing the closure of six gates, the Court said decisions relating to security arrangements and the number of operational entry points are matters of administrative discretion for the RWA. It found no violation of the residents' right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution merely because some gates had been closed.
The judges also referred to the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, noting that the law grants legal recognition and enforcement powers to apartment owners' associations.
Court Calls for Better Grievance Mechanism
Although the Court refused to interfere in the dispute, it noted that the 2010 Act does not provide a clear remedy for complaints relating to issues such as gate closures, excessive parking charges, traffic congestion, or unhygienic conditions within apartment complexes.
The bench observed that such disputes should ordinarily be resolved within the democratic framework of the RWA. However, it directed that the issue be placed before the State Government for consideration of an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism under Section 27(1) of the 2010 Act.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
While upholding the authority of the elected RWA to manage the affairs of the residential society, the Court asked the State Government to consider framing provisions for resolving similar disputes between apartment owners and Residents Welfare Associations.
Case Details
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, U.P., Lucknow and 3 Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 7865 of 2025
Judges: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Decision Date: July 9, 2026
