Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011902-011902 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 39671/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Writ Jurisdiction / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that once a writ court examines and disposes of the core challenge—here, the unilateral hike in licence fee—it must not, without notice, travel beyond the petition and issue fresh directions that place the petitioner in a worse position. Courts invoking inherent powers must afford notice on any new points and confine themselves to the issues raised by the parties. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts deciding scope of writ relief and natural-justice requirements |
| Overrules | Kerala High Court’s Para 53 directions to re-fix licence fee and conduct vigilance enquiry |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A writ court must confine itself to the reliefs sought and the issues raised; it cannot grant fresh reliefs or issue new directions that make the petitioner worse off without notice.
- Principles of natural justice apply when a court considers points not canvassed in the petition—notice and an opportunity to be heard are mandatory.
- Reliance on inherent powers under Art. 226/Section 482 CrPC does not justify extra-petitionary orders.
- Litigants can resist surprise directions by citing this judgment to insist on notice and limit the relief to what was prayed for.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Core challenge: Petitioners challenged the Board’s unilateral hike of annual licence fee from Rs.227.25 to Rs.1.50 lakhs (Ext.P3, P7, P9).
- High Court’s disposal: Upheld the hike but went further (Para 53) directing a fresh fee fixation under T. Krishnakumar and a vigilance enquiry—with no notice to petitioners.
- Supreme Court’s intervention: Stayed operation, observed that fresh directions were beyond scope, violated natural justice, and placed petitioners in a worse-off position.
- Precedents applied: V.K. Majotra (2003) and Naim (1964) on judicial restraint and notice; Pradeep Kumar (2005) and Ashok Kumar Nigam (2016) on not enhancing penalties or reliefs to petitioner’s detriment.
- Outcome: Expunged Para 53 directions; left Board free to enhance licence fee or conduct enquiries in accordance with law and after giving notice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- The High Court’s additional directions in Para 53 were never prayed for and rendered them worse off.
- No notice was given before imposing fresh obligations (re-fixing fee and vigilance enquiry).
- Such extra-petitionary relief violates principles of natural justice.
Respondent (Cochin Devaswom Board)
- No core submissions recorded on the legality of extra-petitionary directions.
Factual Background
P. Radhakrishnan & Anr., licencees of a temple hall on 13.5 cents of Devaswom land, had paid Rs.227.25 p.a. since 1977. In 2014 the Board unilaterally enhanced the licence fee to Rs.1.50 lakhs p.a. (Ext.P3), followed by refusals to review (Ext.P7) and a demand notice for arrears (Ext.P9). Petitioners challenged these orders before the Kerala High Court. The High Court upheld the hike but, in addition, directed a fresh fixation under T. Krishnakumar and a vigilance enquiry without notice. The Supreme Court quashed only those extra-petitionary directions.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court noted the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 as governing Devaswom powers and duties but did not interpret specific sections.
- It emphasized the scope of inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC must be exercised within the petition’s ambit and consistent with natural-justice norms.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules Kerala High Court’s extra-petitionary directions
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms principles from V.K. Majotra, Mohammad Naim, Pradeep Kumar, Ashok Kumar Nigam