Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Render Petitioner Worse Off in Own Writ, Directions to Refix Licence Fee and Order Vigilance Inquiry Against Chinmaya Mission Trust Quashed
Case Name: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1183, Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23740 of 2023)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Held: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and quashed the Kerala High Court’s directions that had ordered (i) refixation of licence fee for land leased to Chinmaya Mission Trust in Thrissur by applying T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board and (ii) a vigilance inquiry into the lease. It held that such directions were beyond the scope of the writ petition, passed without notice to the appellants, and placed them in a worse-off position in their own petition—contrary to the principles of natural justice. Courts, it reiterated, must not spring surprises by expanding the lis beyond pleadings and issues, as this chills access to justice and undermines fairness.
Summary: The dispute concerned lease/licence of 13.5 cents of land by Cochin Devaswom Board to Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust, originally allotted in 1974 on nominal annual contribution of ₹101. In 2014, the Board unilaterally enhanced the licence fee to ₹1.5 lakh per annum and demanded arrears of over ₹20 lakh. The appellants challenged this before the Kerala High Court, which upheld the enhancement but went further to direct refixation of fee under new legal principles and a vigilance probe into the lease. On appeal, the Supreme Court accepted that the appellants had already agreed to pay the enhanced fee with arrears but objected to the additional directions. Referring to V.K. Majotra v. Union of India (2003), State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim (1964), and Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P. (2016), the Court held that litigants cannot be penalized with adverse or expanded directions when they approach courts, as this creates a chilling effect. Judicial restraint and adherence to issues raised in pleadings are mandatory.
Decision: The Supreme Court expunged the Kerala High Court’s additional directions for refixation of licence fee and vigilance inquiry, while permitting the Devaswom Board to independently revise licence fee in accordance with law if otherwise entitled. The appellants were directed to clear balance arrears within three months. No order as to costs.