Either Grant Or Deny Relief; Avoid Passing Adverse Orders Against Litigants On Issues Beyond Pleadings : Supreme Court To High Courts

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 6, 2025) set aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court that had ordered the Cochin Devaswom Board to re-fix licence fees and initiate a vigilance inquiry against Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the High Court's additional directions went beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the appellants and were passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by P. Radhakrishnan and another, trustees of the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust, challenging portions of a Kerala High Court judgment dated August 9, 2023, in W.P.(C) No. 29089/2020.

Background

The dispute arose from land allotted by the Cochin Devaswom Board to the Chinmaya Mission in 1974 for religious, cultural, and social purposes. The land was initially entrusted on a nominal annual “use charge” of ₹101, later marginally revised to ₹142.

In 2014, the Board unilaterally issued an order re-fixing the licence fee to ₹1.5 lakh per annum, with periodic revisions every three years. The Trust objected, terming the hike arbitrary and contrary to the original understanding.

After the Board rejected its review request and demanded arrears exceeding ₹20 lakh, the Trust approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the impugned orders (Exts. P3, P7 and P9).

The High Court upheld the hike but went further by directing a vigilance inquiry into the original lease and ordered the Board to refix the fee afresh in line with a prior ruling.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court, arguing that while dismissing the writ petition, the High Court's additional directions went beyond the scope of the case and left the petitioners in a worse position than before they approached the court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan, relying on precedents like Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 219 and Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 797, the Court reiterated that no petitioner should suffer adverse consequences simply for seeking judicial relief. The vigilance inquiry and fee refixation risked imposing a heavier burden on the appellants than the very order they had challenged

The Court noted that the appellants had only challenged specific fee enhancement orders. By directing fresh fixation and inquiry, the High Court introduced new issues outside the pleadings, in violation of judicial discipline and the principle of natural justice, as the Appellants were not put to notice before passing an adverse direction against them.

“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.”, the Court observed.

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, the Court stated.

Further, the Court doubted the High Court's decision, stating that judicial orders must not cause reputational harm or initiate roving inquiries without necessity.

“The appellant had no opportunity to explain whether T. Krishnakumar (supra) 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.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. VERSUS Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 970

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.