WP(MD)/24220/2026 of T.Siva Manikandan Vs The Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 3 November 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P. VELMURUGAN J.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to instruct the sixth respondent to shift the tyre retreading unit of M/s. Sri Jaya Vinayaga __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026 Tyres, situated at S.F. No.21/1A, R.K. Nagar, Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, to a suitable non- residential area for carrying on its industrial activities.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sixth respondent is running a tyre retreading unit under the name and style of M/s. Sri Jaya Vinayaga Tyres at R.K. Nagar, Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, which is predominantly a residential area comprising nearly 300 families. The industrial activities carried on by the said unit generate an obnoxious smell and harmful emissions, resulting in air pollution and posing serious health hazards to the residents, particularly children and senior citizens. Despite several complaints made by the residents, including a representation submitted in the year 2024, and an inspection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, no effective action has been taken. The learned counsel further submitted that the unit is being operated beyond its permitted capacity and during night hours, thereby causing continuous inconvenience and hardship to the residents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the industry has been functioning since 2017. At the time of its __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026 establishment, there were no residential houses in the vicinity. However, over the years, the surrounding area has gradually developed into a residential locality. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the sixth respondent ought to shift the industry to some other suitable non- residential area. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to suspend the operation of the unit and ensure that it is shifted to a suitable non-residential area.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the sixth respondent has been running the factory since 2017 after obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authorities. It was further submitted that the sixth respondent has complied with the prescribed norms and obtained the necessary consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board after inspection of the unit. The consent granted to the unit has also been renewed and is valid up to 31.03.2028.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026

6. Admittedly, the sixth respondent has been running the industry since 2017. The petitioner has also admitted that, at the time of establishment of the industry, there were no residential houses in the vicinity and that the surrounding area subsequently developed into a residential locality. It is also not in dispute that, at the time of establishing the industry, the sixth respondent had obtained the requisite permission from the competent authorities and that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, after inspecting the unit, had granted the necessary consent. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the consent granted to the unit has been renewed and remains valid until 31.03.2028.

7. In the above circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the industry was established in the year 2017 after obtaining the requisite permissions from the competent authorities, and that the surrounding area subsequently developed into a residential locality, we are of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner, namely, a direction to shift the industry to some other place, cannot be granted in the present writ petition. __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 03-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AM __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026 To

1. The Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.75, Mount Road, Guindy Chennai

2. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.23, Master Plan Area, Sathur Road Collector Office Complex, Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District

3. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, 65/1, Ramamoorthy Road Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District

4. The Junior Engineer Aruppukottai, O/o.Assistant Engineer Distribution, TNEB Rural, Aruppukottai Virudhunagar District

5. The Block Development Officer Kanjanaickanpatti Village Panchayat Aruppukottai Taluk Virudhunagar District __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026 P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. AM WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026 3-11-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )