Chilling Effect On Prospective Litigants If Court Makes Strong Directions Without Putting Parties On Notice: Supreme Court Expunges Kerala High Court’s Observations

The Petition before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court asking the Cochin Devaswom Board to fix the license fee of the Trust.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. V. Viswanathan held, “Litigants go to court for vindicating their rights when they perceive that there is an infringement. The court may, after hearing both parties, grant or deny them relief depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. As pointed out in V.K. Majotra (supra) and Mohammad Naim (supra), 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.”

Factual Background

The second appellant-Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust, was established as a society under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. It functions under the Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Bombay, and is involved in social, religious and cultural activities in Kerala for more than half a century. By a Royal Order, the Maharaja of Cochin, transferred the Rama Varma Bhajanamadam, a part of the Bhuvaneswari temple, to the second appellant. In 1974, the Board allotted six cents of land adjacent to the Rama Varma Bhajanamadam for constructing a hall, subject to certain conditions. The second appellant Trust has been in occupation of 13.5 cents of land and using the hall constructed by it for religious and cultural purposes and for conducting marriages. According to the appellants, though the rent levied was Rs 50,000 per day for the marriages, very few marriages were held, and the Trust was running at a loss.

The license fee was revised in the year 1977 to Rs. 227.25 per annum. According to the appellants, no period for the license having been fixed, the license continued uninterruptedly. It was claimed that in the year 2014, unilaterally and without affording any opportunity, the license fee was refixed at Rs 1,50,000 with a direction that the license fee shall be renewed every three years. The appellant questioned the hike but the Board declared that there was no need for review of the orders hiking the license fee charges to Rs1,50,000.

The first appellant filed a Writ Petition. The High Court found that there was nothing illegal in the enhancement of the license fee. The appellant was aggrieved by the order asking the Board to take necessary steps to fix the licence fee in respect of the land in question, taking note of the law laid down in T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2022). The respondent Board was also asked to conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police), Cochin Devaswom Board, in the matter relating to leasing out the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom to the Trust and take necessary action, if found necessary. The Apex Court had granted a stay of operation of the order on condition that the appellants deposit a sum of Rs 10,00,000 with the first respondent

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the appellant’s submission that they are ready to deposit the license fee as enhanced, along with arrears as claimed. The Bench held, “We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in passing the directions extracted at hereinabove. 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.”

As per the Bench, when the High Court found that the respondents were justified in enhancing the annual license fee to Rs 1,50,000, it should have disposed of the writ petition by simply dismissing it. “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 is entitled to, is an opportunity to explain and defend themselves”, it added.

It was further noticed that the appellant had no opportunity to explain whether T. Krishnakumar (supra) had an application to the transaction in question or not. As per the Bench, directing 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”, it further added.

Thus, finding the impugned observations of the High Court to be absolutely unjustified and to be made in violation of principles of natural justice, the Bench expunged the same. “However, 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”, it ordered.

Cause Title: P. Radhakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1183)

Click here to read/download Judgment