Summary
Having upheld the Devaswom Board's enhancement of a licence fee, the High Court went on, without notice to the writ petitioners, to direct a fresh fixation of the fee and a vigilance enquiry into the original allotment. The Supreme Court expunged those directions as beyond the scope of the writ petition, contrary to natural justice and leaving the petitioners worse off for having come to court.
Issues
- Whether, after upholding the enhanced licence fee challenged in the writ petition, the High Court could direct the Board to refix the licence fee in light of another decision and order a vigilance enquiry into the allotment of the land, without notice to the writ petitioners.
- Whether a writ petitioner can be placed in a worse position as a result of approaching the court.
Held
- The writ petition challenged only the unilateral enhancement of the annual licence fee. Once the High Court found the enhancement justified, it should simply have dismissed the petition; its further directions to refix the fee and to hold a vigilance enquiry went far beyond the scope of the petition. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- If, in an exceptional case, a writ court considers it necessary to travel beyond the scope of the petition and make observations or directions, the affected party must at least be given notice and an opportunity to explain and defend itself; parties cannot be taken by surprise. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 28)
- A litigant cannot be rendered worse off in its own writ petition. Directions made against petitioners without notice, beyond what they sought, create a chilling effect on prospective litigants and can impair access to justice and the rule of law, so courts must exercise great caution. (¶¶ 20, 26, 27, 28)
- The petitioners had no opportunity to address whether the earlier High Court decision relied on applied to their transaction, and a direction for a vigilance enquiry amounting to a fishing and roving enquiry, which can seriously affect the reputation of the parties, was not warranted on the facts and in any case required notice. (¶¶ 25, 29)
- The expunction does not prevent the Board from enhancing the licence fee independently and in accordance with law if it has a legitimate right to do so; the appellants, who conceded the enhanced fee and arrears, remained bound by their undertaking to pay. (¶¶ 17, 31, 32)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; the High Court's directions to refix the licence fee and to hold a vigilance enquiry were expunged and set aside; the Board left free to enhance the fee in accordance with law; appellants to pay the balance of the enhanced fee and arrears, as undertaken, within three months; no order as to costs.