Irudhaya Vinu Bindro Mon v. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and W.M.P(MD)No.19793 of 2025 Irudhaya Vinu Bindro Mon, S/o.Late.Emerson, No.15/106, Port Street, Colachel, Kalkulam, Kanyakumari District - 629 251.
... Petitioner Vs.
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Represented by the District Environmental Engineer, No.318/46A, Water Tank Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from 1/5
initiating any coercive action such as disconnection of electricity and closure of the petitioner's ice plant unit in the name of style of Maria Annai Ice Plant situated at Door No.2/62C, Maharajapuram, Leepuram Post, Kanniyakumari without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 07.07.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil for Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef For Respondent : Mr.Mohamed Abdul Rasiq for M/s.Madhuri Donti Reddy
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) Mr.Mohamed Abdul Rasiq, learned counsel representing Ms.Madhuri Donti Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
2.We have had occasion to consider an identical grievance in W.P(MD)No.24634 of 2025 and by order dated 10.09.2025, have stated as follows:
The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus for a direction forbearing the respondent from initiating corrective action for disconnection of electricity and 2/5
closure of the ice plant without considering their explanation, which according to them, has been filed on 02.08.2025.
2.Ms.Madhuri, learned standing counsel, accepts notice for sole respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and submits that the present Writ Petition is premature, as no course of action has been contemplated as against the petitioners.
3.In response, our attention is drawn to the averments in the writ affidavit, wherein the petitioners submit that the respondent had made attempts to disconnect the electricity supply and evict the petitioners, paving the way for the present Writ Petition. 4.Learned standing counsel for the respondent, while denying those allegations, has made it clear that if at all any action is to be taken, it would only be in consonance with the applicable provisions of law and due process would be followed.
5.In light of the same, we see no reason to entertain the Writ Petition any further and recording the submissions of the learned standing counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
3.Both Mr.Mohamed Adbul Rasiq and Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef, learned counsel on record for the petitioner accede to the fact that the present matter is identical to the earlier writ petition. Hence, the reasoning in that case will apply to the present case as well. 3/5
4.This Writ Petition is hence dismissed will no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 16.09.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps To The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Represented by the District Environmental Engineer, No.318/46A, Water Tank Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4/5
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ps 16.09.2025 5/5