The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WriVOrder more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in restricting the Petitioner theatre from collecting parking fee/charges from customers under G.O.Ms.No.63 MAUD Plg. ll (l) Department dated 20-03-2018 and not allowing it to collect the same as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article l4 of the lndian Constitution and to consequently allow the Petitroner theatre to collect parking fee/charges from customers. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue interim directions allowing the Petitioner theatre to collect parking fee/charges from customers pending disposal of the Wrrt Petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI VIVEK JAIN counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR GENERAL Ar) vilNrsrRATloN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITIONNo.54O7 of2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer "... ro issue a u-trit, Ord-er of direction more particularlg one tn the nature of wnt of Mandamus declanng the action of the respondents in resticting the petitioner theatre from collecting parking fee/ charges from customers under G.O.MS- No.63 MAUD Ptg II (1) Department dated 20 03.2018 and not allowing it to @llect tlle same as belng arbitrdry, illegaL and in uiolatlon of Artrcle 14 of the C.onstitution of IndLa '

2. Heard leamed Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No-2 artd perused the record.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the Writ [etition is that it is a stand alone single theatre having valid licence under A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Rules thereunder; that it has organized parking facility in its premises for customers who come to watch cinema in their thcatre arld collect charges from them; that the Government of Telangana had issued G.O.Ms. No.63 MAUD Plg. III (1) Department dated I 2

20.03.2018 to regulate parking fee/charges in commercial establish ments/ malls/multiplexes in the city o[ Hr r erabad ar-rd other urbal areas in the Telangana State as part (,1 its parking policv; that the petitioner stopped collecting fec charges in apprehension of penal action for any violation of th,r :rders; and that the action of the respondents in restricting r ollcction of parking fee/charges and not allowing the theaters r collect the parking fce lrom its customers is arbitrary, ill:1:rl ald in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Petitioner further contends that the G.O.Ms. \;.63 MAUD Plg.lll (1) Department dated 20.03.2018 does not a1r1 Iy to single thcatre likc the petitioner and is intended only or parking fee/charges in commercial establishments/malls/ nultiplcxes and as such the 2nd respondent cannot restrict t,t i petitioner being a single theatre from collecting the charges.

5. Whcn the Writ Petition is taken up for heari tg, learned Counsel ztppcaring on behalf of the petitioner ferir 1 submitted that thc issue involved in the present Writ petition i; similar to the issue considercd by this Court in W.p. No.2g l3 of 2019 & batch ancl that the clecision in the aforesaid case wol rl squarcly Appl-y to thc facts of the present case. 6. I hgve taken note of the respective contention: rrged. / 3 E implement/ enforce Department dated

7. This Court by its order dated 12 O4'2O22 in W'P No.28315 of 2079 & batch considering the challenge made to respondent authorities in seeking to the action of t]le the G.O.Ms. No'63 MAUD Plg'lII (1) 20.03.2018, however, taking note of t].e uide G.O.Ms. No l21 MAUD Plg'lll(1) amendment issued Department dated 27 'lO '2O2 1 permitting the stand alone single theatres to collect parking fee from its customers' who are cinema goers in therr premises' closed the batch of Writ Pctitions observing that tl.e cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration any further' In the facts of the present case' the petitioner is also a 8. stand alone singte theatre though situated within the urban area, since, by virtue of G'O'Ms No' 121 dated 20 'O7 '2021 is now permitted to collect parking fee from its customers who park their vehicles in the premises of tJle theaters as 'treld by this Court in the decision rendered in W'P' No 28315 of 2O19 & petitioner is also batch, this Court is of the view that the entitled to authorities and resPondent collect Parking fee/ charges cannot initiate arly coercive action against the petidoner for such collection I I 4 \ g_ In vit'u, of the above and for the reasons alikt rs stated in W.P. No.2it3 15 ol 2Ol9 & batch dated 72.04.202 2, rhe Wrir Petition is <:losed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall r tand closed in thc light of this hnal order. s;t y-K. AI SId BHAVANI SWAM TANT REGISTRA Y 4_--.- //TRUE COPYII of Telangana, at Hydera ) ? t333J?i3l YXF " :,t qi[T,t: [?3,%?., o 3 Tw9 CCs ro Gp FOR HOME. Uigh 6ourt for the Stare ^ 4. Two CD Copres Hyderabad [OUTj sEprroru oFFrcER l I lilh Court for the State ,f Telangana, at \ To PSK BS d.. i I I / HIGH COURT I I DATED:27t}6t2l2s I ORDER WP.No.S407 of ZOZO /-: '. ./. i- /, -\ 18 I:i, ;,r4 \ { \ s,( J f;,lro,flt? 35JIr. wRrr PEfliloN @ r4 l,r u .t