1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9902 OF 2009 Umesh Mehra & ors........ Petitioner versus Bhaktawar Co-op. Housing Sty. & ors........Respondent. Mr. Z. Andhyarjiva with R.V. Telasikar i/b Javed Gaya adv. for the Petitioner Mr. M.C. Dixit adv. for the Respondent no.1. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. At the out set the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition for petitioner no.1 Umesh Mehra and seeks liberty to file a fresh petition on his behalf. Allowed to be withdrawn to the extent the petition relates to the petitioner no.1 with liberty as prayed for. 2. The present petitioners are members of a Co-operative Housing Society who filed a dispute under section 91 before the Co-operative Court. In the said dispute, the petitioners moved an application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the society from implementing the resolution passed by the general body which regulates the allotment of parking spaces. The subject of 2 parking and allotment of spaces was taken up before the general body meeting, pursuant to a notice issued which goes to state the policy formulated by the society. 3. According to the policy of the society, which is formulated in tune with the provisions of byelaw no. 79 & 81 of the model byelaw's is that those who are in possession of a garage cannot be preferred to those members who do not have any parking space, either alloted by the society or purchased by them. An equitable distribution of the parking space is sought to be achieved by the society by making available the open parking space to the members who do not already possess the garage/stilt or any other parking space. The trial court on appreciation of the resolution in the light of the relevant model bye laws meaning thereby bye law nos. 79 and 81, held that the petitioners have failed to make a prima facie case in support of grant of injunction as they could not demonstrate that the policy of the society suffers from any illegality or impropriety. The order passed by the Co-operative Court was challenged by the present petitioners by filing an appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Court. The appellate Court concurred with the view taken by the trial court and has concluded that the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case. Hence dismissed the appeal. It is crystal clear that if those who do not have any parking space, are to be denied the same by preferring the preset petitioners, the majority members of the society would be put to suffer inconvenience and hardships. The view taken by the courts below in refusing the injunction is in 3 tune with the object sought to be achieved by bye law no.79 and 81 of the model byelaws. In that view of the matter as the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the petition stands summarily dismissed. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)