The judgment established that alleged customs or usages from the erstwhile state of Travancore-Cochin are not protected by the laws prevailing in the transferred territory, as per the Tamil Nadu (Transferred Territory) Extension of Laws Act, 1957 and the States Reorganization Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent impugned Notice Ka. No. Ko.T19/JE/Sengottai, dated 03.05.2012, quash the same.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging a public auction notice issued by the second respondent herein, under which, tender was called for with regard to thirteen tanks for carrying out fishing activities for the period between 01.06.2012 to 31.05.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the auction notice with regard to two tanks, namely, Thanjavur Kulam and Niraikulam, which are found in serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the above said impugned auction notice.

3. The petitioner has contended that both the above said tanks fall within Shengottai Taluk, which was originally under the administrative control of State of Travancore-Cochin. Both the tanks from time immemorial were maintained by the Ayacutdhars attached to the said tank. They used to perform repair (Kudimaramathu) activities for the said tank. Hence, they are entitled to auction the fishery rights of these two respective tanks and spend the money for the up keep and maintenance of the said tanks. The petitioner has further contended that this tradition and custom was followed in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. Even after the merger of Shengottai Taluk with the State of Tamil Nadu, the said traditions and customs have to be followed.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (1) CTC 735 to contend that the custom and long usage will have the force of law and such custom or usage prevailing in Travancore-Cochin area, cannot be altered merely because the transferred territory now lies in the State of Tamil Nadu.

5. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that the petitioner's rights are protected by Article 372 of Constitution of India, which protects the existing laws and their adoption which had been in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of Constitution. The learned Counsel further contended that Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu (Transferred Territory) Extension of Laws Act, 1957, 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 Section

6. The learned Counsel also relied upon Section 119 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, to contend that the 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 reorganization of new States. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that in view of the long usage and custom of the Ayacutdhars auctioning the fishery rights in the said tank and utilizing the said amount for carrying out Kudimaramathu, the present public auction notice is not legally sustainable.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that though the tank might have vested with the Government, the right to carry out fishing activities still continue with the Ayacutdhars and hence, the respondent authorities will not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to carry out the public auction of the fishery rights.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that though the auction notice is only for a period of one year between 01.06.2012 to 31.05.2013, since a larger issue relating to the right of the respondent authorities in auctioning the fishery rights is involved, the writ petition requires adjudication.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent authorities had contended that the Shengottai Taluk is a part of the territory that was transferred from Tr