The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on the scope of judicial review, has held that a High Court cannot pass directions that are beyond the scope of a writ petition and render the petitioner worse off for approaching the court. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K. V. Viswanathan set aside directions of the Kerala High Court that had ordered a fresh determination of a license fee and initiated a vigilance inquiry against a trust, matters which were not originally prayed for in the writ petition filed by the trust.
The judgment came in the case of P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors., where the appellants had challenged the High Court’s order that, while dismissing their petition, had issued further adverse directions against them. The Supreme Court expunged these specific directions, emphasizing that courts must not take parties by surprise and must adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a dispute between the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust (second appellant) and the Cochin Devaswom Board (first respondent). The Trust was allotted 13.5 cents of land in Thrissur by the Board in stages between 1974 and 1977 for religious and cultural activities. An agreement was executed, fixing an annual contribution, which was eventually revised to Rs. 227.25 per annum in 1977. The terms required the Trust to construct a hall and make it available free of cost for the Devaswom’s activities and for accommodating pilgrims.
On September 16, 2014, the Devaswom Board unilaterally enhanced the annual license fee to Rs. 1,50,000. The Trust’s request for a review was rejected, and on November 27, 2020, the Board issued a notice demanding arrears amounting to Rs. 20,46,788.
Aggrieved by these actions (Ext.P3, P7, and P9), the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, seeking to quash the enhancement and the demand notice.
High Court’s Decision and Appellants’ Grievance
The Kerala High Court, in its judgment dated August 9, 2023, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Board’s decision to enhance the license fee to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum.
However, the appellants’ primary grievance before the Supreme Court was against further directions passed by the High Court in Para 53 of its judgment. The High Court had directed the Board to:
- Re-fix the license fee by applying the law laid down in T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2022).
- Conduct an inquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer into the matter of leasing the land to the Trust and take necessary action based on the report.
The appellants argued that these directions were far beyond the scope of their writ petition and had rendered them “worse off in their own writ petition.” At the outset of the Supreme Court hearing, the appellants agreed to pay the enhanced license fee of Rs. 1,50,000 per annum along with arrears, limiting their challenge to the additional adverse directions.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court found merit in the appellants’ arguments, concluding that the High Court was not justified in passing the additional directions. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing the judgment, observed, “The directions were far beyond the scope of the writ petition. The appellants could not have been rendered worse off in their own writ petition. What is more, the directions have been made without putting the appellants on notice.”
The Court reiterated the established legal principle that a court should decide petitions based on the points raised. Citing its own precedent in V.K. Majotra vs. Union of India and Others (2003), the bench noted, “…if in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case any additional points are to be raised then the concerned and affected parties should be put to notice on the additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice. The parties cannot be taken by surprise.”
The judgment also referenced State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Naim (1964) to state that in making remarks, courts must consider whether the party in question has had an opportunity to explain or defend themselves and whether such remarks are necessary for the decision of the case.
The Supreme Court held that directing an inquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer was not warranted and that such “fishing and roving” inquiries can seriously harm the reputation of parties.
Crucially, the Court addressed the principle that a petitioner should not be placed in a worse position for seeking legal redress. The bench relied on its decisions in Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P. (2016) and Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India (2005), where it was held that an employee challenging a punishment could not be put in a worse-off position by the court. The Court observed, “A writ petitioner cannot be put in a worse position by coming to court.”
The judgment expressed concern that if courts travel beyond the scope of petitions and issue adverse orders without notice, it would create a “chilling effect on other prospective litigants.” The Court stated, “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.”
The Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and passed an order to “expunge and set aside” the specific directions from the High Court’s judgment that mandated the refixing of the license fee and the vigilance inquiry.
The Court, however, clarified, “…notwithstanding the expunction of the above paragraphs, if the respondent-Board has legitimate rights to enhance the licence fee, they may do so independently and in accordance with law.”
As per the undertaking given by the appellants, the Supreme Court directed them to pay the balance amount of arrears for the license fee at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000 per annum within three months.
