In a significant ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court of India set aside a portion of the Kerala High Court’s 2023 judgment that had ordered a vigilance probe and a fresh reassessment of licence fees concerning land leased to the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust in Thrissur. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan, observed that the High Court had “travelled far beyond the scope of the writ petition,” catching the appellants by surprise.
Background
The dispute arose after the Cochin Devaswom Board increased the annual licence fee for land near the Vadakkumnathan Temple from a mere ₹227 to ₹1.5 lakh. The Chinmaya Mission Trust, which had been managing a hall on the premises for religious and cultural purposes since the 1970s, challenged this sudden hike before the Kerala High Court.
Although the Trust initially agreed to pay the revised fee under protest, the High Court not only upheld the hike but also went a step further-it directed the Board to re-fix the fee by applying the ratio of another case (T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board, 2022) and ordered the Chief Vigilance Officer to conduct an inquiry into the leasing process itself.
This, according to the Trust, placed them in a worse position than before they approached the court-an outcome the Supreme Court later found deeply problematic.
Court’s Observations
Justice Viswanathan, writing for the bench, minced no words in disapproving the High Court’s “overreach.” He remarked that litigants approach courts for relief, not to end up in a worse situation than before. “The High Court was justified in examining the legality of the fee hike, but once that was done, it should have simply disposed of the matter,” the bench said.
The Court stressed that while a High Court may, in rare cases, explore issues beyond the pleadings, it must first give the parties a chance to respond. “Courts must not take parties by surprise. Even in exceptional situations, natural justice demands notice and opportunity,” the bench reminded.
Quoting earlier precedents such as V.K. Majotra v. Union of India and Ashok Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that a litigant cannot be “rendered worse off” merely for having sought judicial review.
Decision
Allowing the appeal partly, the Supreme Court struck down the Kerala High Court’s controversial directions-both the order for a vigilance inquiry and the mandate to re-fix the licence fee under a different legal yardstick. However, it clarified that the Cochin Devaswom Board remains free to revise or enhance the fee in the future, provided it follows proper legal procedure.
The bench concluded by recording that the Chinmaya Mission had already deposited ₹10 lakh with the Board, and directed payment of the balance arrears within three months. “No order as to costs,” the Court said, bringing the long-running dispute to a close.
Case Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
Case Type: Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23740 of 2023)
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2025