Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court’s Directions on Licence Fee Re-Fixation and Vigilance Inquiry | Upholds Payment of Enhanced Fee to Cochin Devaswom Board
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the requirement for the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust to pay the enhanced licence fee of ₹1.5 lakh per annum with arrears to the Cochin Devaswom Board and set aside the Kerala High Court’s additional directions for a fresh fee fixation and a vigilance inquiry. The Court held that these directions went beyond the scope of the writ petition and were issued without giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice.
The dispute arose from the enhancement of the annual licence fee for land leased by the Cochin Devaswom Board to the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust. Initially, by a royal order in 1974, the Board allotted six cents of land near the Vadakkumnathan Temple in Thrissur to the Trust for constructing a hall to be used for marriages and religious and cultural activities. The licence fee was fixed at ₹101 per annum. Additional parcels of land were allotted in 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977, ultimately totalling 13.5 cents, with proportionate adjustments in the licence fee, which was last fixed in 1977 at ₹227.25 per annum.
The Board’s proceeding of 16 September 2014 unilaterally revised the licence fee to ₹1,50,000 per annum, with triennial revisions. The Trust objected, terming the enhancement exorbitant and contrary to the original entrustment terms, though conceding that a reasonable increase was acceptable. The Board rejected the objections on 7 February 2015 and directed payment. Subsequent orders in 2015 and a demand notice dated 27 November 2020 sought arrears of ₹20,46,788.
The Trust challenged these actions in a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, seeking to quash the enhancement and recoveries. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the enhancement and directing the Board to re-fix the fee in accordance with the ruling in T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board and to conduct a vigilance inquiry into the lease.
In appeal, the appellants contended that the High Court’s additional directions exceeded the scope of their writ petition and were issued without affording them an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Cochin Devaswom Board maintained that the enhancement was lawful and in line with statutory duties under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellants had themselves agreed to pay the enhanced licence fee of ₹1,50,000 per annum along with arrears and thus “there is no need to discuss the correctness of the reasons why the High Court upheld the enhancement.”
The Court stated that “the High Court was not justified in passing the directions extracted at Para 3 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.”
It further recorded that “a party invokes the jurisdiction of courts being aggrieved by a certain course of action… The High Court was justified in examining the correctness… Having done so, it should have disposed of the writ petition by simply dismissing it.”
The Bench observed 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.”
Quoting from V.K. Majotra v. Union of India, it recorded: “The writ courts would be well advised to decide the petitions on the points raised in the petition… The parties cannot be taken by surprise.”
The Court referred to Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P. stating: “An employee complaining against the punishment awarded to him could not… be placed in a worse-off position for coming to the Court.”
It observed that the High Court’s directions for an inquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer amounted to “a fishing and roving enquiry” which “can seriously impinge upon reputation and character of the parties” and were “absolutely unjustified apart from the fact that they were made in violation of principles of natural justice.”
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and expunged the Kerala High Court’s directions that: “The 1st respondent Board shall take necessary steps to fix the licence fee… taking note of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar… with notice to the 2nd petitioner… within a period of one month…” and that: “…the 1st respondent Board [shall] conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer… in the matter relating to leasing out the land… and take necessary action… based on the report.”
“However notwithstanding the expunction… if the respondent-Board has legitimate rights to enhance the licence fee, they may do so independently and in accordance with law.” It directed the appellants to pay the balance arrears to the Board within three months, in addition to ₹10,00,000 already deposited.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: 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 the Respondents: 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.
Case Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1183
Case Number: Civil Appeal No.11902 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
