The Supreme Court of India, in a key ruling, has held that High Courts cannot go beyond the scope of a writ petition or pass directions that make a petitioner worse off for seeking justice.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan delivered this judgment while setting aside certain directions issued by the Kerala High Court in the case of P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
Background
The case stemmed from a dispute between the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust and the Cochin Devaswom Board over a piece of land in Thrissur. The Trust was allotted the land in the 1970s for religious and cultural use, with a nominal annual fee. In 2014, the Board drastically increased the fee from ?227 to ?1,50,000 per year and later demanded arrears of over ?20 lakh.
Challenging this, the Trust approached the Kerala High Court. However, while dismissing the petition, the High Court not only upheld the fee hike but also went a step further—ordering a vigilance inquiry and a fresh determination of the license fee—issues that were never raised in the petition.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trust’s contention that these directions were beyond the scope of their writ petition. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing the judgment, observed:
“The appellants could not have been rendered worse off in their own writ petition. The directions were passed without putting them on notice.”
The Court reaffirmed that no party should be taken by surprise in judicial proceedings and emphasized adherence to the principles of natural justice. It criticized “fishing and roving inquiries” that can harm reputations and warned that such judicial overreach could create a “chilling effect” on litigants, discouraging people from seeking justice.
Final Order
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions for refixing the license fee and initiating a vigilance inquiry but clarified that the Board can still revise the fee if done lawfully. The Trust, as agreed, must pay arrears based on the ?1,50,000 annual fee within three months.
In essence, the ruling underscores a vital principle: Courts must stay within the boundaries of the case before them and ensure justice, not jeopardy, for those seeking redress.
