Judgment :- 1. The question is whether there is any provision of law which would justify the insistence that a licence should be taken for prawn fishing in private waters. 2. The first petitioner claims to be the owner of a airly extensive area of about 100 acres and the second petitioner is said to be a licensee of the first petitioner and the two of them have been carrying on prawn fishing in that area. The second petitioner applied for a licence for the year 1968-69 under the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950. The licence has been granted to him but was limited to the 15th January, 1969 as is seen from the endorsement to the receipt for money which has been marked separately as Ext. P-2 (a). Though representations were made by the second petitioner (Ext. P-3), the limitation introduced by Ext. P-2 (a) has not been altered. So this petition has been filed and the first prayer, apart from claiming to set aside the order Ext. P-5 and the notification Ext. P-6 passed by the first respondent, the State of Kerala, is to set aside Ext. P-2 (a) limiting the licence for the year 1968-69 to the 15th January, 1969. We do not think we should deal with this prayer at all as the year 1968-69 is now over and the petitioners cannot derive any benefit for that year. Actually in view of the injunction order passed by this Court the limitation introduced by Ext. P-2 (a) did not deter the petitioners from carrying on the operations of prawn fishing in the year 1968-69. We therefore do not deal with this prayer at all. The second prayer raises the question as to whether there is justification for introducing any limitations either by gazette notification or by limiting the period of licence as prayed for. Apparently this is sought to be done in view of the provision in S, 22 of the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950. Counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice S.5A and 58 of the Cochin Fisheries Act which was repealed by the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950 and the rules framed under that Act as ju5tifying the insistence for a licence and as enabling restrictions being introduced for the period for which the licence was issued. S.22 of the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act is in these terms: "22. S.22 of the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act is in these terms: "22. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or any law or custom having the force of law. it shall be unlawful for any person except under a licence and in accordance with the terras and conditions, if any, prescribed by rules made under this section, to attract prawns or cause or allow migration of prawns into private waters from any waters notified under sub-section (1) of S.4 by the use of sluices openings, alluring lights or other contrivances and catch, destroy, cause injury to or prevent escape of any such fish by the use of nets, gratings, gears or any other means whatsoever. (2) Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, (3) The Government may make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this section and prescribe therein the terms and conditions under which a licence may be issued. (4) Fee at such rates as may be fixed by the Government by rules made under subsection (3) shall be paid in respect of every licence issued under sub section (1): Provided that the fee payable for any such licence shall not exceed a sum calculated at rupees five per acre of the private waters into which prawns are attracted or caused or allowed to migrate. (5) The breach of any rule made under sub section (3) or of the conditions of any licence issued under sub section (1), shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees." S. 4 (1) which is referred to in the above section is as follows: "4 (1) The Government may make rules for the purposes hereinafter in this section mentioned and may, by a notification in the Gazette, apply all or any of such rules to such waters, not being private waters, as the Government may specify in the said notification." It is admitted before us that no notification had been issued under S.4 (1) of the Act. Without such a notifications. 22 is not attracted at all. And if the section is not applicable, there is no provision in the Act under which a licence can be insisted upon for prawn fishing in'private waters'. Without such a notifications. 22 is not attracted at all. And if the section is not applicable, there is no provision in the Act under which a licence can be insisted upon for prawn fishing in'private waters'. The position was different under the Cochin Fisheries Act (III of 1092) because S.5A and 5B of that Act enabled insistence on a licence for prawn fishing in'private waters'. This not being the position under S.22 of the Act, the rules framed under the Cochin Fisheries Act cannot be relied for the purposes of the Act. The provision in the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950 being inconsistent with the provision under the Cochin Fisheries Act the rules framed under the Cochin Fisheries Act cannot be saved by S.23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, We therefore grant the second prayer in this petition declaring that in the absence of a notification under S.4 (I) of the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950 there can be no restriction by the insistence on a licence for prawn fishing in'private waters'. This original petition is ordered on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.