Electricity restoration on livelihood grounds does not authorize operations without pollution-control compliance and approval.

The petitioner, Santhi, widow of Late Mani Vallatharasu and mother of five children, operated M/s. Sandhiveeran Crusher at Survey Nos. 32/3, 32/5, 32/6, 33/2 and 33/3, Themavur Village, Pudukkottai District.

She asserted that the quarry/crusher business was her family’s only source of livelihood.

The electricity supply to the unit was disconnected by the third respondent on 16 September 2026, allegedly without prior notice.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board stated that it had received complaints against the unit and had conducted inspections on 16 December 2025, 18 April 2026 and 13 June 2026.

Notices seeking an explanation were issued to the petitioner, but she allegedly failed to appear.

The electricity department contended that the disconnection was made at the instance of the Pollution Control Board.

The petitioner consequently sought restoration of the electricity connection on the basis of her representation dated 17 September 2026.

The Pollution Control Board was impleaded as the fourth respondent during the proceedings.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution for restoration of the electricity service connection to M/s. Sandhiveeran Crusher.

Whether restoration of electricity could be directed despite alleged environmental violations and pending compliance requirements imposed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus concerning restoration of the electricity connection.

The Court applied the principle that restoration of an essential service may be directed where the unit constitutes the petitioner’s only source of livelihood, while preserving the competent regulatory authority’s power to enforce environmental requirements.

The Court further maintained that restoration of electricity did not amount to permission to operate a crusher unit lacking the requisite environmental compliance or approval from the Pollution Control Board.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s quarry/crusher unit was the only source of livelihood for her and her family.

Although the Pollution Control Board had relied on complaints, inspections and alleged non-compliance, the Court balanced the petitioner’s livelihood concern against the regulatory objections by directing restoration of the electricity connection while expressly prohibiting operation of the crusher.

Thus, the electricity connection could be restored, but the petitioner was required to comply with all directions of the Pollution Control Board, make the necessary improvements, and obtain proper approval before recommencing operations.

The petitioner was prohibited from operating the crusher until she complied with all directions of the fourth respondent and obtained the requisite approval from the Pollution Control Board.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.