HC Suspends GO Allowing Parking Fee at Theatres

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has granted interim relief to moviegoers by suspending a government order that allowed standalone cinema theatres in municipal areas to collect parking charges. The court issued an interim suspension of GO 121 dated July 20, 2021, which permitted theatres to levy parking fees from visitors. The order came while hearing a writ petition filed by Ramavath Prem Kumar, who challenged the government order after being charged parking fees at Konark Theatre in Dilsukhnagar when he visited to watch a film.

Counsel for the petitioner Vijay Gopal argued that collecting parking charges from cinema-goers by commercial establishments was illegal. He contended that the government order permitting such collection violated Section 176(6) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

The provision mandates that commercial establishments must provide adequate and dedicated parking facilities as a condition for obtaining building permission and prohibits the use of designated parking areas for other purposes.

The petitioner argued that once a viewer purchases a cinema ticket in a standalone theatre, collecting a separate parking fee amounts to an unauthorised charge not contemplated under municipal law. After hearing the submissions, the High Court temporarily suspended the operation of the government order and directed the state government to inform standalone theatres not to collect parking charges from moviegoers. The matter was adjourned to April 6 for further hearing.

HC allows a couple to avail surrogacy procedure

The Telangana High Court has to allowed surrogacy for a couple, where the woman was suffering from several issues, medicalled ‘androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) and ‘Karyotype XY absent ovaries and uterus’, necessitating use of donor oocyte.

The wife had the physical features of a woman; she was not a transgender and she was fit to lead conjugal life. Though the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy district at Kukatpally, gave orders for concerning parentage and custody of the child to be born through surrogacy, the commissioner of health and family welfare, chairperson, state appropriate authority (SAA), ART & Surrogacy Act rejected the application of the couple for a certificate of essentiality and eligibility under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

The authority relied on a cytogenetic report showing the wife’s 46 XY chromosomal pattern and concluded that she did not fall within the statutory definition of a “couple”, which the Act described as a legally married Indian man and woman. It also referred to a communication from the Union government stating that transgender persons were not covered under the Act. Hence, the couple approached the High Court.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka has set aside the SAA order and pointed out that the competent authority under the Act had certified the medical necessity for surrogacy under Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022.

The court also took the cognizance that the authorities confirmed that the wife was not a transgender person but a woman suffering from CAIS and possessed all physical characteristics of a female. The court observed that denying the certificate solely on the basis of chromosomal analysis was not valid. The judge also referred to the Supreme Court decision in ‘Arun Muthivel v. Union of India’, which clarified that Rule 14 permitted gestational surrogacy where a woman was unable to conceive or carry a pregnancy due to medical conditions.

Justice Bheemapaka while writing the judgment, also discussed the cultural and religious context of marriage and procreation in Indian society. Referring to Hindu scriptures such as the Manusmriti and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the judge observed that childlessness had historically carried social stigma in orthodox communities. Such social pressures can cause significant hardship for couples who are unable to conceive, the Judge observed.

The court directed the state appropriate authority to issue the certific