Madras HC Restores Erode Textile Unit’s Power After Supply Cut Over Alleged Effluent Discharge Without Prior Hearing

In brief

The question

1. Whether the electricity supply to the petitioner’s unit could be disconnected on the basis of the Collector’s communication without prior notice or an opportunity to respond.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Collector’s communication dated 12 August 2026 insofar as it led to disconnection of the petitioner’s electricity supply, and directed the respondents to restore the connection forthwith.

It also directed

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner operated a textile-processing unit and held consent under the Air and Water Acts valid until 31 March 2028.

p. 2 · p. 4

Following an inspection on 12 August 2026, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board officials reportedly found that the unit was not operating its Effluent Treatment Plant with Zero Liquid Discharge and was discharging untreated effluent into a public drainage system.

p. 3

The District Collector, acting as Chairman of the District Coordination Committee, directed disconnection of the unit’s electricity supply; TANGEDCO disconnected it on 17 August 2026.

p. 3, 5

The petitioner challenged the disconnection, contending that it had received neither prior notice nor an opportunity to respond.

p. 2 · p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the electricity supply to the petitioner’s unit could be disconnected on the basis of the Collector’s communication without prior notice or an opportunity to respond.

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of its electricity connection.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, requiring the affected unit to receive a show-cause notice and an opportunity to submit an explanation or objection before the authorities take action against it.

p. 4

It recognised that the authorities could initiate proceedings concerning alleged environmental violations, but held that this power must be exercised in accordance with that procedure.

p. 4

04Reasoning

The inspection report prompted the Collector’s direction to disconnect the electricity supply, but the petitioner had not been informed of the inspection or given an opportunity to answer the allegation of untreated-effluent discharge.

pp. 3–4

The Court noted that the petitioner’s consent remained valid until 31 March 2028 and did not preclude the authorities from initiating proceedings; however, any such action required prior notice and an opportunity to respond.

p. 4

Because the disconnection was imposed without that procedure, the Court found the action unsustainable and characterised the Collector’s communication as a colourable exercise of authority.

p. 5