WP CRL./2392/2026 of Cobra Tecton Pvt Ltd. Vs The State Rep. by, The Principal Secretary on 15 October 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.Amalaraj for the petitioner, Mr.S.Yoraja Sekar for respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6, Mr.Goutham Raman for CMWSSB and Mr.Yogesh Kanna for the 7th respondent.

2. The CMWSSB had decided to construct a desalination plant in the outskirts of city of Chennai at Nemmeli. For the purpose of its construction, commissioning and operation, it entered into a contract with the writ petitioner. One of the terms of the contract is removal of temporary construction structures and demobilisation of construction machinery. The contractor has to perform the said tasks after completion of the project. The removal of the temporary structures and demobilisation of materials would be inspected by the project head in-charge of CMWSSB. The writ petitioner herein, on securing the contract, entered into a sub-contract with the seventh respondent. Disputes arose between the petitioner and the seventh respondent. The seventh respondent addressed a letter on 15.06.2024, calling upon the petitioner to submit for arbitration in terms of the sub-contract entered into between the parties. The seventh respondent also wrote to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to permit the seventh respondent to remove its articles. This was favourably considered by the writ petitioner.

3. In the meantime, a fisherman of the locality moved the National Green Tribunal (NGT), alleging that on account of construction of the temporary structures by groynes, boulders etc., the ocean was eroding their lands, thereby affecting their livelihoods. The NGT, Southern Zone passed an order recording the statement of CMWSSB and directed the CMWSSB to remove the temporary structures. As it was a scope of work to be performed by the petitioner, CMWSSB called upon the writ petitioner to remove the groynes and temporary structures. When the petitioner attempted to remove, the seventh respondent’s manager prevented such removal.

4. Thereafter, the seventh respondent herein filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to provide police protection for demobilisation of equipment as stated in its complaint dated 12.12.2025. This was in W.P.Crl. No.959 of 2026. Without going into the merits of this case, this Court by an order dated 04.08.2026 directed that the police issued notices to the writ petitioner and the villagers and pass orders in accordance with law. It is pertinent to point out that when the writ petition was moved by the seventh respondent, he did not array the writ petitioner herein as a party to the proceedings. Earlier on 06.04.2026, CMWSSB issued a direction to the writ petitioner herein stating that, unless and until the petitioner removes the temporary structures, CMWSSB would remove the same at its cost and recover it from the writ petitioner with penalty.

5. As the writ petitioner was literally stuck between the devil and deep sea, he approached the police on 12.08.2026, seeking protection so as to comply with the orders of CMWSSB and the NGT. As no action was initiated despite the request made, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. It is the plea of Mr.Amalaraj that the contract is between the petitioner and the CMWSSB and the seventh respondent has no right to interfere with the execution of the contract. Mr. Gowtham Raman has produced the agreement entered into between the CMWSSB and the writ petitioner, which deals with design, build and 150 MLD capacity desalination plant. A perusal of the Product Desalination Plant – Environmental and Social Management Plan at clause 2.15 of Volume-IIIB shows that it is the duty of the writ petitioner to remove the temporary construction structures and demobilisation of the construction machinery. Being a back-to-back contract, the petitioner has entered into a sub-contract with the seventh respondent.

7. Mr.Yogesh Kanna argues that on account of the contract entered into between the writ petitioner and the seventh respondent, it was the seventh respondent who incurred the expenses to install the temporary structures and construction equipment and therefore, it is only the seventh respondent, who is entitled to remove the same and not the writ petitioner.

8. I have carefully considerations the submission of all sides. I have gone through the records.

9. Certain facts are admitted. CMWSSB proposed to construct a reverse osmosis plant at Nemmeli. It entered into a contract with the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, in turn, entered into a sub-contract with the seventh respondent. On account of the alleged soil erosion, applications were moved before the NGT. The NGT ordered CMWSSB to remove the temporary structures on the basis of the undertaking given by CMWSSB. The dispute today is that the petitioner claims it is entitled to remove the same. This aspect is denied and the seventh respondent asserts that it is the one, who is entitled to remove the said structures.

10. When the contract is between CMWSSB and the writ petitioner, all that the seven respondent has is the right to sue the writ petitioner by invoking the arbitration clause. The temporary structures are not going to suffer decay. They are groynes and boulders. In the event CMWSSB does not remove them, not only the fishermen are going to be affected, but CMWSSB runs the risk of facing contempt action before the NGT. Such an eventuality is not very pleasant to Mr.Gowtham Raman’s client.

11. Similarly, if the CMSWWB were to employ its own resources and remove the structures and construction materials, the writ petitioner would suffer a serious loss on account of the fact that CMWSSB will not only recover the amount it has spent towards such removal, but it would also impose a penalty on the writ petitioner for non-performance of its duty. In such a contract, the seventh respondent is a stranger. There is no privity of contract between the seventh respondent and CMWSSB. The job of the seventh respondent in execution the work on behalf of CMWSSB was only through the writ petitioner.

12. When there is a breach of contract between the writ petitioner and the seventh respondent, the remedy is not to move to the police and arm-twist the writ petitioner to succumb to a settlement. The appropriate remedy is to form an arbitral tribunal and make a claim for money before the said tribunal. If the materials were subject to decay, this Court could have considered the plea of Mr.Yogesh Kanna that he will retrieve the materials, keep it in his custody and await the result of the arbitral award. Fortunately, groynes and boulders are not going to go into dust or drain within a period of eighteen months – the period necessary for completion of an arbitration proceeding.

13. Hence, there shall be a direction to the police to afford protection to the writ petitioner to remove the temporary structures and groynes that have been installed by it or on its behalf. The writ petitioner shall take inventory of the materials it has removed and the same should be counter-signed by the CMWSSB. This would freeze the number of items being removed, so as to enable the arbitral tribunal to arrive at a value, in the event of success of the seventh respondent.

14. The respondent police shall grant police protection to the writ petitioner on payment of Rs.10,000/- per day. On such payment, the police shall issue a receipt and the concerned Inspector of Police shall depute one Sub- Inspector, one Head Constable and one Constable Grade-I. In the event there is any law and order problem created by the seventh respondent or any other person(s), the police shall ensure that such mischief makers are removed from the site immediately and appropriate action is initiated as per law.

15. With the above observations, the writ petition is ordered. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAL

To

1. The State Rep. by, The Principal Secretary Home. Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2. The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District, Collectorate Campus, Chengalpattu.

4. The Superintending Engineer(Eesalination) The Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Mahabalipuram Sub Division, 1st Floor, Thirukula Street, Fisherman Colony, Mahabalipuram, Chengalpattu District.

6. The Inspector of Police Kovalam Road, Fisherman Colony, Mahabalipuram, Chengalpattu District.

7. M/s.Meka Infra Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Project Manager, Mr.K.Kalibabu, Registered Office at No.304, Shiv Smirti Chambers, 3rd Floor, 49, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. KAL WP Crl. No. 2392 of 2026 15-10-2026