T.Siva Manikandan vs The Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Court
Madras High Court

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011153002026}
and
W.M.P(MD)No.18028 of 2026
T.Siva Manikandan
S/o.Thirumeni,
New S.No.21/25, RK Nagar,
Kanjanayakan Patty Village,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
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.
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )

WP(MD) No. 24220 of 2026
5. The Block Development Officer
Kanjanaickanpatti Village Panchayat,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
6. Vijayan, Proprietor
M/s.Sri Jaya Vinayaga Tyres,
S.No.21/1A1, RK Nagar, Bye Pass Road,
Kanjanayakkanpatti, Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd
respondent to direct the 6th respondent to shift the unit Named SRI
JAYA VINAYAGA Tyres situated at SF No.21/1A, R.K Nagar,
Kanjanayakkan patty Village, Arupukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar district,
to any other non residential area to run the factory.
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.N.Sundaresan
For Respondent(s) :Mr.P.Rajagopalan
Additional Government Pleader
for R5
Mr.D.Sivaraman
Standing Counsel for R1 & R2
Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
Standing Counsel for R3 & R4
Mr.A.Baskaran for R6
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
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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.
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( 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
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:59:26 pm )