ORDER: The plaintiffs are the appellants and they have sought for interim injunction. The suit was filed by the appellants for declaration and injunctions that the respondents are not entitled to charge special fees from the devotees at Sri Devi Bhagavathi Amman Temple and for a per

manent injunction. The respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and that the fee system has been introduced only to facilitate old people, pregnant women and those who cannot stand in the queue for long term and that it is not as if the entrance fee is collected from all the people standing in the general queue, who are free to have dharshan without paying any fee, and that a similar system prevails in other famous temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and therefore the second appeal has been filed and it has been admitted on 3rd November, 2004.

2. Caveator took notice and today the interim application for injunction restraining the respondents from collecting any fee by way of ticket or other fee for dharshan in Shri Devi Bhagawati Amman Temple at Kanyakumari District, is listed for hearing.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, under Sec.119 of the States Reorganisation Act, the law prevailing in the erstwhile State, from which territories newly added to another State, emerged shall continue to be in force, notwithstanding the change in the territories and formation and Re-organisation of new States. It was submitted that custom and long usage also have the force of law and such custom or usage prevailing in the Travencore Cochin area cannot be altered merely because the transferred territory now lies in the State of Tamil Nadu According to the learned counsel, such custom and usage shall continue to be in force as per Sec.119 of the States Reorganisation Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner’s rights are protected by Art.372 which protects the existing laws and their adaptation, which had been in force in the territory of India, immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Art.256, Art.265 and Art.266 protect the rights of the petitioners. The learned counsel also referred to Sec.7 of the Tamil Nadu Transferred Territory Extension of Laws Act, 1957 by which saves the previous operation and all rights, privileges, obligations or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any corresponding existing law which has been replaced by Sec.6. The learned counsel also relied on Sec.97(A) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which gives the Board Trustees, constituted under Sec.47, the power to administer the Devasthanam in accordance with recognised usage. The learned counsel specifically placed stress on the words ‘recognised usage’. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Court in T.Mariasinghem Chettiar v. The State of Madras, (1963)1 M.L.J. 365, wherein it was held that:

"The proper interpretation of Sec.119 of the States Reorganisation Act is that laws prevailing in the erstwhile State from which the territories, newly added to another State, emerged, should continue to be in force, notwithstanding the change in the territories and formation and reorganisation of new States. But in the application of such laws regard must be had to the concept of States as constituted under the Act (XXXVII of 1956). It is not possible to take the view that for the purposes of application of pre-existing laws effect should not be given to the mandatory provisions of the Act which undoubtedly on and from the appointed day creates and reorganises the States. In other words old laws which were in operation in the territories which formed the subject-matter of the reorganisation and reconstitution would apply but only consistent with the changed state of affairs resulting from the oper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document