LexP. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. versus COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 286 : 2025 INSC 1183 P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 2025) 06 October 2025 [Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned directions issued by the High Court were beyond the scope of the writ petition and ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Writ petition – Directions issued beyond the scope of – Impermissibility – First respondent-Board enhanced the annual license fee of the premises let out to the second appellant- Trust from Rs.227.25/- p.a. to Rs.1,50,000/- p.a.; held that there would be no review of the aforesaid order and demanded arrears of Rs.20,46,788/- of licence fee – Challenged – High Court upheld all the aforesaid orders and passed the impugned directions directing the first respondent to fix the license fee in respect of the land in question by applying the law laid down in T.Krishnakumar and to conduct an inquiry through the Chief Vigilance Officer w.r.t the transaction between the Board and the appellants and take necessary action based on the report – Interference with: Held: 1.1 High Court was not justified in passing the impugned directions – Directions were far beyond the scope of the writ petition – Appellants could not have been rendered worse off in their own writ petition – Directions were made without putting the appellants on notice. [Para 20] 1.2 A party invokes the jurisdiction of courts being aggrieved by a certain course of action taken against him/it by the respondent – In this case, the appellants were aggrieved by the unilateral hike of the annual charges to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from Rs.227.25/- * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 287 P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors. which they were paying – High Court was justified in examining the correctness or otherwise of the said decision – High Court found that the respondents were justified in enhancing the annual license fee to Rs.1,50,000/- – Having done so, it should have disposed of the writ petition by simply dismissing it. [Para 21] 1.3 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 is entitled to, is an opportunity to explain and defend themselves. [Para 22] 1.4 Appellant had no opportunity to explain whether T. Krishnakumar had application to the transaction in question or not – Further, to direct the Chief Vigilance Officer to hold an inquiry in the “matter relating to leasing out the land to the appellant” was not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case – Directions of this nature for a fishing and roving enquiry can seriously impinge upon reputation and character of the parties – Even in a given case if the High Court was constrained to pass such directions it ought to have put the appellants on notice. [Para 25] 1.5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations were absolutely unjustified apart from the fact that they were made in violation of principles of natural justice – Impugned directions expunged and set aside. [Paras 29, 30] Administration of justice – Duty of Courts: Held: Litigants go to court for vindicating their rights when they perceive that there is an infringement – Courts may, after hearing both parties, grant or deny them relief depending on the facts and circumstances of the case if without putting parties on notice (even in the rare and exceptional case where facts warrant) the court travels beyond the scope of the petition, takes parties by surprise and makes any strong observations and directions, it will create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants too – They will be left to wonder whether by going to court in matters where they perceive injustice has resulted, they will be rendered worse off than what they were, before initiating the 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. [Para 28] 288 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited V.K. Majotra v. Union of India and Others [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 483 : (2003) 8 SCC 40; State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim [1964] 2 SCR 363; Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 797; Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 219 – relied on. T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.