Telangana HC Examines Legality of Theatre Parking Fees

Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court sought the state government’s response on the power to collect parking charges at various cinema halls. He was dealing with a writ petition filed by Ramavath Prem Kumar challenging a 2021 government order permitting collection of parking fees at cinema theatres.

The petitioner argued that while an exemption in favour of cinema halls was introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic as a relief measure, the the broader permission to levy parking charges lacks statutory backing. He relied upon Section 176(6) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, which mandates compliance with parking requirements as a precondition for grant of building permission, to contend that commercial establishments are obligated to earmark adequate parking space and cannot impose a separate charge on patrons.

It was further contended that cinema theatres, having already been permitted to enhance ticket prices on account of increased maintenance costs, cannot justify a distinct parking levy under the guise of operational expenditure. Counsel for the petitioner pointed to an earlier judgment of the High Court and argued that customers who produce purchase receipts cannot be compelled to pay parking fees and that selective exemption in favour of certain establishments results in hostile discrimination.

During the hearing, Justice Shravan Kumar observed that while provision of parking space is mandatory under statutory regulations, regulation of vehicular movement, deployment of personnel and maintenance of order in high footfall venues necessarily involve expenditure. The Court indicated that any challenge to recovery of such costs must be supported by a clearer legal foundation. The judge, however, granted two weeks’ time to enable the state to obtain instructions and place its response on record.

Expressing concern over the prolonged delay in introducing a statutory framework for lift and elevator safety, the Telangana High Court on Wednesday called upon the state government to clarify the status of the proposed legislation.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation initiated on the basis of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice in March 2025, followed by a formal application filed by advocate Barkat Ali Khan. During the hearing, the panel sought clarification from the state on whether it had enacted a comprehensive Lift Act and, if so, the timeframe within which it would be brought into force.

The Court directed the state to file a detailed affidavit indicating the present status of the proposed legislation by the next date of hearing. Counsel representing the state informed the Court that a draft Act had been prepared on September 9, 2025, and is presently under active consideration of the government. On being queried about the timeline for operationalisation, the government pleader submitted that the legislation may take approximately six months to come into effect.

Appearing as party-in-person, advocate Barkat Ali Khan submitted that, pursuant to earlier directions, he had examined lift safety laws in other states and prepared comprehensive guidelines aimed at preventing accidents. The guidelines have been placed before both the Court and the government for consideration. He further apprised the panel that, since the previous hearing, several deaths and injuries had been reported in lift-related incidents across the state, contending that numerous such incidents remain unreported. He emphasised the urgency of establishing a statutory regulatory framework.

Taking note of the submissions, the panel directed the state to consider the guidelines prepared by the party-in-person while finalising the proposed legislation. The matter was adjourned by four weeks for further consideration.

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the commissioner of civil supplies and the vice chairman and managing director of the civil supplies corporation Stephen Raveendra, IPS, in a contempt plea.

The employee of the corporation alleged deliberate non-compliance with earlier court directions relating to petitioner’s promotion and consequential service benefits. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was dealing with a contempt plea filed by G. Gopal. The petitioner contended that a fire accident occurred at JD Agro Gunny Godown in Nirmal Town, resulting in the destruction of approximately two lakh empty gunny bags and property damage estimated at Rs 75 lakh.

Following the incident, the petitioner reported the matter to the police and departmental authorities. He was subsequently placed under suspension by the joint collector. Though the suspension was later revoked and a penalty of censure imposed, the petitioner stated that he was promoted to the post of assistant manager (general) in March 2013 based on Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings. However, the promotion was later revoked, and he was reverted to his earlier post. The petitioner challenged the action, and the appellate authority set aside the punishment of censure. Despite this, he alleged that consequential promotion benefits were not granted, leading to multiple representations and rounds of litigation.

The petitioner relied on earlier orders of the High Court wherein the Court directed the authorities to consider his representation strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and revised seniority list. Alleging wilful non-compliance of the said directions, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. After hearing the matter, the panel posted the matter for further hearing.