JUDGMENT :

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave was granted in this matter on 09.09.2025.

2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 29089/2020. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the appellants in terms of the Ext.P3-Proceedings dated 16.09.2014 and Ext.P9-Notice dated 27.11.2020, shall pay the licence fee, at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum along with arrears to the first respondent-Cochin Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”).

3. However, the grievance of the appellants is that the further directions of the High Court have rendered them worse off in their own writ petition. The further directions in Para 53 of the judgment, which according to the appellant, are beyond the scope of the writ petition and with which they are seriously aggrieved are in the following terms:

“The 1st respondent Board shall take necessary steps to fix the licence fee in respect of the land covered by Exts.P13 to P16 orders, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798: 2022 (5) KHC SN 8] and also the law laid down in this judgment, with notice to the 2nd petitioner Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.”

“In view of the facts noticed by this Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 of this judgment and also the stand taken by the 1st respondent Board before this Court that other than the copy of Exts.P13 to P16 orders, no other documents are seen in the relevant files, we deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent Board to conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police), Cochin Devaswom Board in the matter relating to leasing out the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom to the 2nd petitioner Trust and take necessary action, if found necessary, based on the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer”

4. The appellants filed a writ petition on 21.12.2020 before the High Court of Kerala praying for the following reliefs:

“a) call for the records of the case leading upto Exts. P3, P7 and P9 and quash the same by the issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction staying all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibits P3, P7 and P9 proceedings. and

c) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.”

5. Ext.P3 under challenge was the order of the first respondent-Board dated 16.09.2014, enhancing the annual license fee of the premises let out to the second appellant from Rs.227.25/- per annum to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. Ext.P7 is the proceeding dated 02.05.2015 rejecting any review of the order dated 16.09.2014 and further directing the measurement of the property. Ext.P9 is the communication dated 27.11.2020 demanding arrears totaling to Rs.20,46,788/- within 14 days of the receipt of the communication.

6. To understand the grievance of the appellants before the High Court, a brief reference to the facts of the case is essential. The second appellant-Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust was established as a society under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. It functions under the Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Bombay, and is involved in social, religious and cultural activities in Kerala for more than