K-Lite Industries Private Limited, Vs The Chairman

¶1

WP No.22254 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

WP No.22254 of 2026

¶7

K-Lite Industries Private Limited, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, D-10, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600058

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

Vs

¶10

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO), No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai -600002.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer TANTRANSCO, GCC Circle, Chennai.

¶12

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai -600 003.

¶13

The Executive Engineer Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police Avadi Police Commissionerate, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai -600054.

¶15

The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO), SIDCO Corporate Office, Chennai - 600058.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 7

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP No.22254 of 2026

¶19

The Estate Officer, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai -600058.

¶20

CAAIIUC / Competent Industrial Estate Authority, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600058

¶21

M/s.Minerva Veritas Data Centre Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Pattravakkam Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600098.

¶22

10.Sri Vaari Electricals Pvt Ltd, Cable Laying Contractor, C 37, Thiru Vi Ka IndustrialEstate, Guindy, Chennai 600032

¶23

..Respondent(s)

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officers, servants, agents, contractors or any person claiming through them from digging, excavating, trenching, cutting, uprooting trees, removing plants, shrubs or otherwise interfering with or causing damage to the green belt developed and maintained by the petitioner in front of Unit No.22-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, for the purpose of laying the proposed 110 KV underground transmission cable intended for the benefit of the 9th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to identify and adopt an alternative alignment in accordance with law after considering the petitioners representations dated 27.05.2026 and after conducting a joint inspection of the site.

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Saravana Vel For Respondent(s): Mr.D.R.Arunkumar Standing Counsel (for R1 & R2) Mrs.K.Aswini Devi Standing Counsel (for R3 & R4) Mr.Durai Gunasekaran Government Advocate (for R5)

¶26

__________ Page2 of 7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

WP No.22254 of 2026

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their officers, servants, agents, contractors or any person from digging, excavating, trenching, cutting, uprooting trees, removing plants, shrubs or otherwise interfering with or causing damage to the green belt developed and maintained by the petitioner in front of Unit No.22-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai, for the purpose of laying the proposed 110 KV underground transmission cable intended for the benefit of the 9th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to identify and adopt an alternative alignment in accordance with law after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 27.05.2026 and after conducting a joint inspection of the site.

¶31

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is a reputed industrial establishment engaged in the manufacture of lighting products and has manufacturing facilities within Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai. It is further stated that as part of environmental policy, petitioner has undertaken extensive afforestation, landscaping and green belt development programmes around its industrial units.

¶32

It is the case of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has

¶33

Page3 of 7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP No.22254 of 2026

¶36

developed a green belt in Unit No.22B situated in 3^rd Main Road, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, which is stated to have been developed with the approval of competent industrial authorities including SIDCO and CAAIIUC. The petitioner has developed the green belt and has been maintaining the same at its own cost for several years. While so, it is stated that the TANTRANSCO has proposed to lay a 110 KV underground transmission cable to provide power supply to the 9^th respondent and it is alleged that the cable would be laid through the middle of petitioner’s green belt. Aggrieved, petitioner submitted representation to the respondent on 27.05.2026 seeking clarification regarding the proposed alignment of the transmission cable, however, the same is pending consideration. Hence this writ petition.

¶37

At the outset, the learned counsel for respondents would submit that the subject property/site belongs to Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶38

When it was suggested that until the representation is finalised, the respondent authority shall not proceed further, the learned counsel for respondents would submit that laying of underground transmission cable would get delayed and would affect larger public interest. He would in any view submit that the petitioner's representation would be considered and orders would be passed by the appropriate respondent within the time period stipulated by this Court and they will not proceed further until then.

¶39

Page4 of 7

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

WP No.22254 of 2026

¶42

In that view of the matter, the respondent authorities are directed to inspect the subject site/property before 15.06.2026 and provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 16.06.2026 at 11 a.m. The respondents shall thereafter consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2026 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law on or before 19.06.2026. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶43