Supreme Court Expunges High Court Directions That Placed Litigants In Worse Position, Upholds Licence Fee Demand

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal against the Kerala High Court's judgment of 9 August 2023 upholding a unilateral enhancement of licence fee by the Cochin Devaswom Board and issuing further directions to fix licence fee afresh and to order a vigilance enquiry. The appellants challenged orders dated 16.09.2014, 02.05.2015 and a notice dated 27.11.2020 that sought arrears from the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, held that the High Court was not justified in travelling beyond the scope of the writ petition and in placing the appellants in a worse position without notice, and expunged the additional directions that required the Board to refix the licence fee and to direct a Chief Vigilance Officer enquiry. The Supreme Court observed that while the appellants accepted liability to deposit the enhanced licence fee and arrears as claimed, courts must not take parties by surprise by making adverse directions without affording an opportunity to explain. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted and set aside the High Court's directions which had stated, among other things, “The 1st respondent Board shall take necessary steps to fix the licence fee in respect of the land covered by Exts.P13 to P16 orders, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar ... and also the law laid down in this judgment, with notice to the 2nd petitioner ... as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month ...” — directions that the Supreme Court expunged as beyond the writ scope and made without notice to the appellants. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay the balance amount deposited earlier to the Board within three months.

Background The dispute arose out of allotments and successive licence agreements dating from the 1970s under which the Chinmaya Mission Trust was granted about 13.5 cents of land adjacent to the Vadakkumnathan temple in Thrissur to construct and run a hall for marriages, religious and cultural activities. The original licence fixed nominal use charges (Rs.101/- and later minor revisions) and contained conditions obliging the Trust to provide free accommodation to pilgrims and to spare the hall for Devaswom activities on request. In 2014 the Cochin Devaswom Board, without prior notice to the Trust, refixed the annual licence fee at Rs.1,50,000/- and directed renewal every three years; subsequent proceedings in 2015 and a notice in 2020 sought arrears exceeding Rs.20 lakh. The Trust challenged those orders by writ petition and the High Court upheld the Board's enhancement after referring to local fund audit objections, the prime locality of the land and authority under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, and applied the ratio in T. Krishnakumar. The High Court also directed the Board to re-fix licence fee in light of that law and ordered a vigilance enquiry through the Chief Vigilance Officer — directions which the Supreme Court found to have rendered the appellants worse off and to have been issued without giving them an opportunity to be heard. Relying on precedents that a litigant cannot be placed in a worse position for seeking judicial redress, the Supreme Court expunged the impugned paragraphs that required refixation and the vigilance enquiry, left intact the High Court’s upholding of the enhanced licence fee, and directed payment of amounts as undertaken by the appellants. The Court granted no costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No.11902 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No.23740 of 2023; 2025 INSC 1183) Case Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment