Supreme Court: The present appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9-8-2023, passed by the Kerala High Court (‘High Court’), whereby the license fee of Rs. 1,50,000, as decided by the Respondent 1-Cochin Devaswom Board (‘Board’) was upheld. Further, the High Court directed the Board to conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer, in the matter relating to leasing out the land to the Chinmaya Trust and take necessary action, based on the report.
The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., stated that directing the Chief Vigilance Officer to hold an inquiry in the “matter relating to leasing out the land to the appellant” was not warranted. Even if the High Court was constrained to pass such directions, it ought to have put the appellants on notice. The Court stated stated that if the court travels beyond the scope of the petition without putting parties on notice, and makes any strong observations and directions, it would create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants too. Thus, the Court expunged and set aside the para related to conducting an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer.
Background
In the present case, Appellant 2-Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust (‘Chinmaya Trust’) was established as a society under the Trusts Act, 1882. It functioned under the Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Bombay, and for more than half a century, it was involved in social, religious and cultural activities in Kerala. By a royal order, Maharaja of Cochin transferred, a part of the Bhuvaneswari temple to Chinmaya Trust.
On 16-2-1974, the Board allotted six cents of land for constructing a hall subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, over the years, total of 13.5 cents of land space was allotted. Chinmaya Trust used the hall for religious/cultural purposes and for marriages. Since the hall was not air conditioned and there was no parking space, only few takers were available for the marriage hall. Though the rent levied was Rs. 50,000 per day for the marriages, very few marriages were held and the Chinmaya Trust was running at a loss.
Consequently, the license fee was revised in 1977 to Rs. 227.25 per annum. Further, by proceeding dated 16-9-2014, the license fee was re-fixed at Rs. 1,50,000 with a direction that it shall be renewed every three years. By its order of 7-2-2015, the Board declared that there was no need for review of the orders hiking the license fee charges to Rs. 1,50,000.
Subsequently, the appellant filed the petition in the High Court, and it was found that there was nothing illegal in the enhancement of the license fee. Further, the High Court directed the Board to conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer relating to leasing out the land to the Chinmaya Trust and take necessary action, based on the report.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in the present case, the appellants were aggrieved by the unilateral hike of the annual charges to Rs.1,50,000 per annum. The Court stated that the High Court was justified in examining the correctness of the said decision. However, the High Court found that the respondents were justified in enhancing the annual license fee and having done so, it should have disposed of the petition by simply dismissing it. The Court stated that the High Court was not justified in passing the directions related to conducting an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer. The directions were far beyond the scope of the petition. The Court stated that the appellants could not have been rendered worse off in their own writ petition and what was more, that the directions were made without putting the appellants on notice.
The Court stated that it is well settled that if in an exceptional case the Court feels the need to travel beyond the scope of the writ petition and make observations, the least a party was entitled to, was an opportunity to explain and defend themselves. The Court stated that undoubtedly, the High Court, keeping in mind the decision of T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 3700, directed the fixing of license fee. However, the appellant had no opportunity to explain whether the said decision had an application to the transaction in question or not. Further, the Court stated that directing the Chief Vigilance Officer to hold an inquiry in the “matter relating to leasing out the land to the appellant” was not warranted. Directions of this nature for a fishing and roving enquiry, could seriously impinge upon reputation and character of the parties. Even if the High Court was constrained to pass such directions, it ought to have put the appellants on notice.
The Court relied on V.K. Majotra v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 40 and State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 22 and stated that if the court travels beyond the scope of the petition without putting parties on notice, and makes any strong observations and directions, it would create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants too. They might fear that seeking justice through the courts could leave them in a worse position than they were in before initiating legal proceedings. This could seriously impact access to justice and consequently the very rule of law. Hence, in such matters, courts must exercise great caution and circumspection.
Thus, the Court opined that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the observations related to conducting an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer, were absolutely unjustified apart from the fact that they were made in violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the Court expunged and set aside the said para and stated that notwithstanding the said expunction, if the Board had legitimate rights to enhance the licence fee, they might do so independently and in accordance with law.
[P. Radhakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 2025, decided on 6-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.; N.K. Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Anu K Joy, Adv.; Alim Anvar, Adv.; Santhosh K, Adv.; Devika A.l., Adv.; Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR
For the Respondent: P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv.; P.S. Sudheer, AOR; Anna Oommen, Adv.; Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.; Anne Mathew, Adv.; Bharat Sood, Adv.; Jai Govind M J, Adv.; Jashan Vir Singh, Adv.; Harshad V. Hameed, AOR; Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.; Ashly Harshad, Adv.; Mahabir Singh, Adv.; Anshul Saharan, Adv.
