[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.S.Murugan vs / on 17 February, 2026
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.02.2026
Pronounced on : 17.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014 and 20942 of 2013
and
M.P(MD) Nos.1 of 2014, 2 to 5 of 2014, 1 and 2 of 2014,
1 and 2 of 2013 and 3061 of 2016
W.P.(MD)No.1726 of 2014
M.S.Murugan ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
Secretary,
Department of Environment and Forests,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Chief Controller of Explosives,
O/o.the Chief Controller of Explosives,
A Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur-440006, Maharastra.
3.The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives,
FRDC Complex, Near ESI Hospital,
Sivakasi West, Sivakasi-626 124,
1/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Virudhunagar District.
4.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
6.Ayatharmam Village Panchayat,
Rep by its President,
Ayartharmam Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
7.Vellapottal Village Panchayat,
Rep by its President,
Vellapottal Village,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
8.M/s.Jumbo Fire Works (India Pvt. Ltd.),
Rep by its Proprietor C.Subash Singh,
Ayatharmam Village,
Elandaikulam Post, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
9.M/s.Vadivel Fire Works
Rep by its Partner Arumugasamy,
Vellapottal Village, Karisalkulam Post,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to
forbear the respondent Nos.8 and 9 allowing the commencement of the Fire
Works Factories at Ayatharmam Village and Vellapottal Village, Srivilliputhur
2/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Taluk, Virudhunagar District without the permission of this Court fixing the
time schedule for such commencement.
For Petitioner
: Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr.Ajmalkhan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
for R1, R4 to R7
Mr.R.Nandakumar for R2 & R3
Mr.S.Silambannan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Karthik- for R8
Mr.Sivaji for R9
W.P.(MD)No.4962 of 2014
1.V.Chellakkannu
President,
Govindanallur Village Panchayat,
Govindanallur, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
2.V.Karuppaiah ... Petitioners
/Vs./
1.The Union of India represented by
The Inspector General of Forests
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Wild life Division, Paryavaran Bhawan
CRO Compled, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2.State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
Secretary,
Department of Environment and Forests,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
3.The Chief Controller of Explosives,
O/o.the Chief Controller of Explosives,
A Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur-440006, Maharastra.
4.The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives,
FRDC Complex, Near ESI Hospital,
Sivakasi West, Sivakasi-626124,
Virudhunagar District.
5.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
6.The Commissioner,
Watrap Panchayat Union,
Watrap, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
7.The District Forest Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
8.Ayatharmam Village Panchayat,
Rep by its President,
Ayartharmam Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
9.Vellapottal Village Panchayat,
rep by its President, Vellapottal Village,
Karisalkulam Post, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
10.M/s.Jumbo Fire Works (India Pvt. Ltd.),
Rep by its Proprietor C.Subash Singh,
Ayatharmam Village, Elandaikulam Post,
Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
4/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
11.M/s.Vadivel Pyro Works
Rep by its Partner Arumugasamy,
Vellapottal Village, Karisalkulam Post,
Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
12.The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Geomatics Centre,
Tamil Nadu Forest Department,
Chennai – 15. ... Respondents
(R12 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court
dated 10.11.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.4962 of 2014)
PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.2 to 6 not
to process any application for construction and establishment of Fire Works
Factories in and around 10 km of the Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wild
Life Sanctuary, being Eco-sensitive Zone of a Protected Area under Sec. 2
(24A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and consequently direct the
respondents No.5 to 8 to demolish the Fireworks Factories put up by
Respondent Nos.10 and 11 at Ayatharmam Village and Vellapottal Village
respectively, in Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
For Petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha
For Respondents : Mr.R.Nandakumar for R1
Mr.P.Paul Pandi
Central Government Standing Counsel
for R3 & R4
Mr.S.Silambanan, Senior Counsel
Mr.S.Karthik
for M/s.Profex Associates for R10
5/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
for R2, R5, R6, R7 and R12
Mr.P.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Venkatesh for R11
No appearance – R8 and R9
W.P.(MD)No.5738 of 2014
M/s.Vadivel Pyro Works,
A Partnership Firm registered under the
Partnership Act represented through its
Managing Partner V.Arumugasamy
Having office at 43-A, Kaliammankoil Street,
Sivakasi-6261 23, Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
/Vs./
The Commissioner cum
Block Development Officer,
Watrap, Srivilliputtur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.A3/768/2013 dated 27.01.2014 and
quash the same and consequently allow the petitioner to carry on the business
pursuant to the license and the NOC granted in his favour under the
Explosives Act and the Rules.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General
6/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
for sole respondent
W.P.(MD)No.20942 of 2013
M/s.Vadivel Pyroworks,
A Partnership Firm registered under the
Partnership Act represented through its
Managing Partner V.Arumugasamy
Having office at 43-A, Kaliammankoil Street,
Sivakasi-626123, Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
/Vs./
The Commissioner cum
Block Development Officer,
Watrap, Srivilliputtur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.A3/768/2013 dated 31.10.2013 and
quash conditions 1 and 7 in the said proceedings and consequently direct the
respondent to allow the petitioner to carry on the business pursuant to the
license and the NOC granted in his favour under the Explosives Act and the
Rules.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
for sole respondent
7/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J]
Prelude:
The fireworks industry is one of the few industries flourishing in the
State of Tamil Nadu. Fireworks manufacturing units significantly provide
employment to a considerable section of the population in Virudhunagar
District. But for this industry, there will be hardly any alternative employment
opportunities for the people in the said district. The petitioners in Public
Interest Litigations appear to be oblivious to the fact that the continued
operation of fireworks industries is intrinsically linked to the livelihood and
employment of a large number of people. Though it is true that there have
been instances of fatal accidents occurring during the manufacturing process,
the Government has, from time to time, introduced several preventive and
safety measures, along with stringent regulatory norms, to ensure safe
manufacture of firecrackers. Considering these circumstances, and bearing
them in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the facts of the case.
2.Prayer in the Public Interest Litigations:
2.1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1726 of 2014 has filed the
present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the official
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
respondents to restrain private respondents, namely, Jumbo Fireworks and
Vadivel Fireworks, from commencing a fireworks manufacturing unit at
Aayatharam Village and Vellappottal Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District, without obtaining appropriate prior permission from
the local authorities.
2.2. The writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No. 4962 of 2014 have filed a
public interest writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 2 to 6 not to process any application for the construction and
establishment of Fireworks Factories around 10 kilometres of the
Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, which is an Eco-sensitive
Zone of a protected area under Section 2(24A) of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972. Consequently, the petitioner also seeks a direction to the
respondents 5 to 8 to demolish the fireworks factories allegedly put up by
respondents 10 and 11 at Aayatharam Village and Vellappottal Village.
3.The sum and substance of Public Interest Litigations:
3.1. In the above writ petitions, it is averred that the proposed site for
firework factories of private respondents are situated in close proximity to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Shenbagathoppu Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, which is a protected
area under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the relevant
existing Government Notification of the year 2014, the proposed units fall
within ten kilometres of the prohibited distance from the reserved forest area.
They did not obtain building plan permission from the village panchayat and
constructed the buildings and failed to obtain permission from the Panchayat
Union Council as per the requirement of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
1995. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have permitted to operate a
fireworks manufacturing industry at the said locations. Since the proposed
factories are likely to commence their production activities within the Eco-
sensitive zone and buffer zone of the aforesaid wildlife sanctuary, there is a
likelihood of eruption of forest fire which will be detrimental to the wildlife.
Further, Vadivel Pyro works had constructed the building obstructing the
water channel running through the lands and it has paralyzed the agricultural
activities in the surrounding villages. It has also obstructed existing public
pathway by fencing boundaries. Without obtaining permission for conversion
of agricultural land for development purposes, as mandated under Section
47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, they have
constructed the building in agricultural lands to start the factory. Fireworks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
units are prone to frequent fire accidents resulting in loss of human lives. The
private respondents also have continued their construction activities even
after the cancellation of the approved building plan. Hence, the writ
petitioners in Public Interest Litigation have sought for the above said
prayers.
4.Brief facts of W.P. filed by Vadivel Fireworks:
4.1. The petitioner, Vadivel Fireworks, in W.P.(MD) No. 20942 of 2013
has filed the writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka. No.
A3/768 dated 31.10.2013 and quash Conditions Nos. 1 and 7 imposed
therein, and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to
carry on its business pursuant to the licence and No Objection Certificate
granted in its favour under the Explosives Act and the Rules framed
thereunder.
4.2. According to the petitioner, Vadivel Fireworks is a partnership firm
registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The partners are owners of lands
comprised in Survey Nos. 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217/1, 2, 218, 223/2, 224,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
225, 226, 227 and 228/1 & 2, situated at Vellappottal Village. The said
properties were purchased by the partners in the year 2012 under various sale
deeds from different owners. Based on such purchase, the petitioner is in
possession and enjoyment of the lands and obtained patta in its favour.
Thereafter, the petitioner decided to establish a fireworks manufacturing unit.
4.3. The petitioner submitted an application for building plan approval
before the concerned Panchayat on 01.04.2013. As the said application was
not considered within the statutory period, the petitioner claims that, by virtue
of the deeming provision under Section 220(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
Act, the plan approval is deemed to have been granted. Relying on the said
deeming provision, the petitioner conducted Bhoomi Pooja and proceeded
with construction of the building.
4.4. After completion of construction, on 21.03.2013 the petitioner
applied for permission for construction of Fireworks Factory, the
Commissioner-cum-Block Development Officer, Watrap Panchayat Union.
The said application was ultimately approved by proceedings dated
31.10.2013, subject to several conditions imposed under Sections 160 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Among them, Conditions Nos. 1 and 7 stipulated
that a portion of the construction was located on a road vested with the
Government and that an approved building plan had to be submitted within a
period of three months. Aggrieved by the imposition of the said Conditions
Nos. 1 and 7, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.
20942 of 2013. This Court granted an interim order, which is subsisting.
4.5. During the subsistence of the interim order, the respondent passed
another order dated 27.01.2014 cancelling the conditional approval granted
earlier, on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions
imposed. Challenging the said cancellation order, the petitioner filed another
writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 5738 of 2014, seeking to quash the same and
for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to carry on the business
pursuant to the licence and No Objection Certificate granted under the
Explosives Act and Rules.
4.6. In the said writ petition, it is specifically pleaded that once the plan
approval is deemed to have been granted under Section 220(3) of the Act, the
petitioner was not required to furnish any further building plan approval.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
With regard to the condition relating to the road, though the petitioner
disputes the existence of a public road, it is stated that the petitioner had
undertaken to lay an alternative access road for public use, which was
accepted by the local Panchayat by passing a resolution, and that the
petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the same. It is further
contended that the cancellation order dated 27.01.2014 was passed during the
subsistence of the interim order granted by this Court and, therefore, the said
order amounts to wilful disobedience and is a nullity in the eye of law.
4.7. The petitioners/respondents, namely Vadivel Fireworks and Jumbo
Fireworks, have filed counters denying the allegations made in the public
interest litigations. According to them, their units do not fall within the
prohibited or eco-sensitive zone. Jumbo Fireworks, in particular, has
submitted that all statutory permissions have been duly obtained and that the
allegation regarding violation of eco-sensitive zone norms is incorrect. It is
further submitted that, pursuant to the issuance of a subsequent Government
Order, the units do not fall within the restricted zone, which fact has been
specifically affirmed by the Government in its counter affidavit. The Forest
Department has also filed a counter affidavit supporting the said stand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
4.8. It is lastly contended that, due to the interim orders passed in the
public interest litigations, the petitioners have been prevented from operating
their industries since 2013, despite having made substantial investments,
resulting in heavy financial loss. On the above grounds, they seek dismissal
of the writ petitions filed against them.
5.Case of the Jumbo Fireworks:
5.1. The allegation stated against Jumbo Fireworks that they had not
obtained permission either from the panchayats or from the Panchayat Union
Council to construct the building are totally false. They had obtained proper
building permission from the Ayardharmam village panchayat and proper
approval from the Panchayat Union Council and they had also obtained
licenses from all other departments and at the time of the commencement of
production of the firecrackers, the Public Interest Litigations have been filed
with false allegation. The firecrackers unit is situated far away from the forest
area and also the said wildlife sanctuary. Setting the firecrackers units would
neither cause any disturbance to the wild animals and nor affect the eco-
system and therefore, they sought to dismiss the said Public Interest
Litigations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
6.Submission of Mr.P.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of vadivel pyro works:
6.1. They submitted the building plan approval to the local authority on
01.04.2013. As per the Section 220(3) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the said
application was not considered for the period of three months, and the same
was not rejected within the period, the plan approval is deemed to have been
granted. Therefore, they commenced the construction activities upon the
premises that the plan approval is deemed to have been granted and after
completion of the construction activities, they had submitted application to
the Commissioner, Watrap Panchayat Union, Watrap, Virudhunagar District to
grant Certificate of approval of building plan in order to start the Fireworks
Factory. The said request was considered and the building plan was approved
with certain conditions and aggrieved over the two conditions, namely, the
building plan approval has to be submitted within three months and the
construction in the common pathway, footpathway and the odai found in the
factory site have to be removed and that should be no hinderance to the usage
of pathway. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P(MD) No.
20942 of 2013 and this Court granted interim stay and pending the interim
stay, direction was issued by letter dated 31.10.2023 to produce the building
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
plan in utter disregard to the interim order granted by this court for the non
compliance of the above said conditions. Therefore, they had filed another
writ petition in W.P(MD) No.5378 of 2014 and the interim order also was
granted. At this stage, two public interest litigations were filed without any
genuine public interest, but with vested interest in order to stop the
commencement of the fireworks factory stating that the construction was
made without building plan and the place of the factory was situated within
10 kilometres of Shenbagathopu, Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary and
hence there would be serious threat to the wild life animals and also possible
danger of forest fire and in view of the obstruction of the water channel
running through the factory premises connecting the various water sources of
the different villages it would also have adverse impact an agricultural
activities and also there was no permission under Section 47 A of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.
6.2. The learned Senior Counsel elaborated his argument and submitted
that the proposed factory premises does not come under the Town and
Country Planning Development area and hence application of Section 47-A of
the Town and Country Plan Act will not arise. The deemed building plan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
approval was obtained and hence the direction issued by the Commissioner of
Panchayat Unition vide impugned order dated 31.10.2013 to produce the
building plan within three months by obtaining from Panchayats is illegal.
There was no public pathway, footpathway and running water channel within
the precincts of the factory premises. There was no reference about the same
in the FMB Sketch. As per the Tamil Nadu Survey Manual of Department
Rules, there must be reference about the public pathway etc., by giving sub-
division survey numbers. There is no such reference in the FMB Sketch
produced before this Court. Therefore, the claim of public pathway and the
consequential prohibition in the impugned order dated 31.10.2013 that there
should be no obstruction to the usage of the pathway, water channel etc., is
illegal. But in order to bring about peaceful atmosphere to start the industry,
they are ready to provide the alternative pathway at the width of 20 feet as
expressed by the village panchayat resolution dated 03.06.2013. Absolutely,
there is no water channel through the land as stated by the Government to
connect the Peruntalaipatti Kulam (pond) and Govindanallur Kulam there is
no Weirs on the either side of the villages. The allegation that they
constructed two more rooms in the water channels is mis-conceived. Even
otherwise, they had agreed to provide a water channel to connect with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
pond. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TN.Godavaraman
Thirumal Kpad vs. Union of India and Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India
there is no prohibition to run the industry even in the buffer zone if there was
no adverse effect on the Forest Environmental and Wild life. As per the
notification issued by the Union Government in the year 2019, the industry is
away from the eco-sensitive zone and the same was also clear from the report
submitted by the competent Environmental Department. Hence, there is no
question that the proposed industry comes within the eco-sensitive zone.
Therefore, considering the huge investment made in the year 2013 and in the
absence of any legally objectionable cause, the industry has been unable to
make headway. The learned senior counsel also relied the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Susetha vs. State of Tamilnadu and
others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 543 and submitted that harmonisation of
environmental protection and sustainable development has to be done. More
particularly, in this case when the competent authorities stated that the factory
premises is away from the forest area and also wildlife sanctuary. Therefore,
the learned senior counsel would submit that the industry is the only source
of employment for the local people and when all the department had provided
permissions and license to start the industry, the Vadivel Pyro works is unable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
to start the industries and hence, they pray for disposal of the writ petition
with suitable direction to the authorities to grant approval and the required
license without insisting further conditions.
7.Submission of Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel:
7.1. The Senior Counsel Mr.Silambanan on behalf of the jumbo Fire
Works would submit that they had obtained proper building plan approval
and all other licenses and at the stage of the commencement of the
production, the public interest litigation has been filed with vested interest
without valid reason and in view of the pendency of the interim order, they
had filed vacate stay petition and the writ petition is pending more than 12
years and now the only violation according to the writ petitioner in the public
interest litigation is that they have constructed close to the eco sensitive zone
is also not correct in view of the finding given by the competent authority that
this construction does not come within the eco-sensitive zone and the same is
in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government in 2019.
Therefore there is no impediment to vacate the interim order granted by this
Court and allow the industry to commence the production.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
8.Submission of the learned counsels in the Public Interest
Litigations:
8.1. Mrs. Geetha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in
the Public Interst Litigation W.P(MD) no 4926 of 2014 would submit that the
earlier guidelines issued by the then ruling Government at the time of filing
the writ petition prohibited the Non-Forestry activities within 10 kilometres
of the wild life sanctuary and there is no necessity to follow the 2019 circular.
They constructed the building in the year 2013 in violation of the existing
circular and obtained the permission in violation of the circular that existed at
that time and there is no logic in relying on the present circular 2019.
Protection of the wild life is important and preserving the eco-sensitive zone
should be the paramount consideration. She would also submit that the
Vadivel Fire Works have not complied the condition imposed by the
Panchayat Union Commissioner even till date and therefore, there is no merit
in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Vadivel Fire
Works. The learned counsel for the other public interest litigation in W.P.
(MD) No.1726 of 2014 also reiterated the submission of the learned counsel
Mrs.Geetha.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
9.Submission of the learned Additional Advocate General:
9.1. Mr.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the State
would submit that both Jumbo Fire Works and the Vadivel fire Works are not
within the eco-sensitive zone and they are 4.3 kilometres away from the eco-
sensitive zone as per the 2019 circular. But Vadivel Fire Works has to provide
20 feet road and remove the two rooms situated in the water course so as to
enable free flow of water connecting pond and also provide foot path and
also meet the cost of Tar road made by the panchayat at the cost of Rs.11
lakhs and also clarify the cloud on the title.
9.2. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that only
above the width of 20 links pathway, the sub-division was made in the FMB
Sketch and in all other cases the village records showed the path way by
delineating the “dotted lines”. Therefore, the argument on the basis of the
survey manual is mis-conceived.
10.This Court heard all the parties and perused the records and
considered the precedents relied upon by them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
11.Discussion on the Environmental Aspect:
11.1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar, by proceedings in O.Mu.No.
2/2013 dated 25.05.2013, has categorically recorded that, unlike any other
district in the State of Tamil Nadu, there has been a mushrooming growth of
the fireworks industry both small-scale and large-scale in Virudhunagar
District. As on 25.05.2013, the district accounted for more than 7,700
fireworks factories and high-explosive magazines. The concentration of these
units was found to be particularly dense in the Taluks of Sivakasi, Sathur and
Virudhunagar. Taking note of the serious safety concerns arising from such
thick concentration, especially in the event of accidental explosions, the
District Collector, in the larger public interest, banned the grant of new
explosives licences in the aforesaid Taluks. Accordingly, under the said
regulatory order, issuance of fresh licences for fireworks factories or
explosive magazines was prohibited in these Taluks. However, recognising
the need for balanced industrial development and employment generation, the
order permitted the grant of licences in other Taluks namely Rajapalayam,
Srivilliputhur, Aruppukottai, Kariyapatti, and Tiruchuli subject to the
satisfaction of the District Collector regarding the genuineness of the
applicant’s purpose and compliance with statutory norms.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
11.2.Pursuant to the said policy decision, the private respondents,
namely, “Jumbo fire works” and “Vadivel pyro works” migrated and proposed
to construct the manufacturing unit in Vellaipottal Village and Ayardharmam
village where the lands were predominantly barren and where agricultural
activity was minimal. The District Forest Department have filed the additional
counter affidavit dated 23.09.2025 along with records with the specification
that the Vadivel Fireworks factory is located at 4.14 kilometres away from the
boundary of Srivilliputhur Grizzled Wildlife Sanctuary and also that Vadivel
Fireworks is located 2.73 kilometres outside the eco-sensitive zone. Both
Vellaipottal village and Ayardharmam Village does not come under the eco-
sensitive zone in the annexure IV of the Central Government vide S.O.
3974(E) – notification dated 30.10.2019 of the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change. Therefore, there is no necessity to obtain
permission from either State Board Wildlife or National Board of Wildlife. In
the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India, Civil Writ Petition No.435 of
2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified its earlier directions issued in sub-
paragraphs 4 and 5 of paragraph 71. The said clarification makes it clear that
there is no absolute prohibition on mining activities within a radius of 10
kilometres from the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Rather, it is for the State Government to decide whether permission can be
granted, and such decision is always subject to judicial review.
11.3. In the present case, the industry had already constructed the
building, and before commencement of production, an interim order was
granted by this Court in the Public Interest Litigation. Even at that stage, the
industry had specifically averred that it did not fall within the prohibited
zone. During the pendency of the writ petition, the circular issued in the year
2019 came into force, and pursuant thereto, reports were submitted by the
competent authorities of the Forest Department categorically stating that the
unit is situated outside the eco-sensitive zone and far away from forest area.
11.4.Therefore, the learned counsel, Ms. Geetha, contention that the
industry was within the prohibited zone as on the date of filing of the writ
petition in the year 2014 and that it is not entitled to the benefit of subsequent
notification, cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected. Therefore, there
is no justification to deny permission on environmental grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
12.Discussion on the Jumbo Fireworks:
12.1. The Jumbo Fireworks have been arrayed as tenth respondent in
the W.P.(MD).No.4962 of 2014 and eighth respondent in W.P.(MD).No.1726
of 2014. Their specific case is that they had obtained building plan from the
Ayardharmam village panchayat and constructed the building and thereafter,
they had obtained permission from the Panchayat Union Council and other
departments and they also produced the relevant documents. The learned
Additional Advocate General and also the petitioner in the Public Interest
Litigations have not disputed. Therefore, the allegation in the Public Interest
Litigation that they have not obtained permission from the authorities is not
correct. The said area does not come under the developed area under the
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and therefore, there is no
necessity to obtain conversion of agricultural land for the industrial purpose
as per the Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.
The District Forest Department have filed the additional counter affidavit
dated 23.09.2025 along with records with the specification that Jumbo
Fireworks factory is located at 4.18 kilometres away from the boundary of
Srivilliputhur Grizzled Wildlife Sanctuary and also that Jumbo Fireworks is
located 2.63 kilometres outside the eco-sensitive zone. The Ayardharmam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
village in which the Jumbo Fireworks factory is located does not come under
the eco-sensitive zone in the annexure IV of the Central Government vide
S.O.3974(E) – notification dated 30.10.2019 of the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change. Therefore, there is no necessity to obtain
permission from either State Board Wildlife or National Board of Wildlife. In
view of the undisputed fact that Jumbo Fireworks obtained all the
permissions and licences from all the department and their location also is
2.63 kilometres outside eco-sensitive zone, they are entitled to commence the
factory. Hence, the Public Interest Litigation filed against Jumbo Fireworks is
devoid of merits and therefore, this Court is inclined to dismiss the PIL
insofar as it relates to Jumbo Fireworks and issue a direction to the concerned
statutory authorities to permit Jumbo Fireworks Company to run the industry.
13. Discussion on the Vadivel Fireworks:
13.1.Discussion on the building plan permission:
The Vadilvel Fireworks submitted the building plan permission before
the Village Panchayat authority on 01.04.2013. The same was not rejected for
the period of three months and hence, as per the Section 220(3) of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the plan approval is deemed to have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
granted. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation that they constructed the building
without obtaining the plan is not correct and also the first condition imposed
in the impugned order dated 31.10.2013 to submit the building plan is not
legally valid and hence, the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 in so far as the
direction to obtain the building plan from the panchayat is liable to be set
aside.
13.2.Discussion on the alternative pathway:
(i)So far as Vadivel Fireworks is concerned, they have filed two writ
petitions before this Court challenging the orders passed by the Panchayat
Union Commissioner dated 31.10.2013 and the consequential order dated
27.01.2014. According to the petitioner, initial permission was granted by the
Panchayat Union Commissioner subject to certain conditions, particularly
Condition Nos. 1 and 7, namely:
(iii) Obtaining building plan approval from the local authority; and
Providing a pathway.
(iv) Vadivel Fireworks agreed to comply with the said conditions. The
allegation against them was that the industry had been constructed on a
Government pathway, pursuant to which the above conditions were imposed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Challenging the same, writ petitions were filed before this Court and an
interim stay was granted.
(v) During the subsistence of the interim stay, the Panchayat Union
Commissioner cancelled the permission dated 31.10.2013, allegedly on the
ground of non-compliance with Condition Nos. 1 and 7, which were already
stayed by this Court. Such cancellation was clearly in violation of the interim
order passed by this Court.
13.3. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vadivel
Fireworks submitted that due to the passage of time and the pendency of the
writ petitions, there are a number of change of circumstances. Now the
panchayat passed resolution to accept the alternate pathway of 20 feet
earmarked in the suggestive plan. The learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that the Government has no objection to the laying of such an
alternative road and that, upon compliance, permission would be granted. A
counter affidavit to the said effect has also been filed. The Vadivel Fireworks
have filed affidavit dated 19.01.2026 and have undertaken to provide an
alternative road of 20-feet width in S.Nos.226, 227, 228, 207, 230 as stated in
the sketch. Even though, there was a denial on the side of the Vadivel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Fireworks, that a panchayat laid road put up at a cost of more than 11 lakhs
was running through the proposed factories, this Court perused the records
and found that there was a clear thar road running through the proposed site
and it is not the case of the Vadivel Fireworks that the road was laid by them
after purchase and no document was produced to prove the same. Since the
existing pathway running through the middle of the industrial premises causes
disturbance both to the functioning of the fireworks industry and to the road
users, the plea of the Vadivel Fireworks to provide alternative site as
approved by the panchayat dated 03.06.2013 in the above mentioned survey
numbers to the width of 20 feet deserves to be accepted and hence this Court
directs it to execute proper document in favour of the panchayat to the above
mentioned 20 feet road covering all survey numbers and also lay the thar road
at their cost to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department for simple
reason that they had claimed right over the already existing road laid by the
panchayat.
14.Discussion on the Water Channel Issue:
14.1. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that a running
water channel exists in the Vadivel Fireworks land, connecting irrigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
tanks namely Govindanallu Kulam and Peruntalaipatti Kulam between two
villages. The learned Senior Counsel for Vadivel Fireworks submitted that the
said water channel never existed and there was no such water channel and
that no culvert exists across the land to show the proof of running of water
connecting two water tanks meant for agricultural purpose as there was no
reference about the said water channel in the revenue F.M.B. Sketch.
However, the learned Additional Advocate General on instructions from the
Land Revenue authorities submitted that although there is no specific
subdivision reference in the F.M.B. sketch, the channel is shown and marked
with “dotted lines” in the survey records of the village. As per survey
guidelines, either for road or water channel below 20 links in width, the same
are shown as “dotted lines” in the village records. This Court also perused the
document filed by the learned Additional Advocate General and found that
there was a running water channel and also connecting culvert (bridge) for
water to flow from the Peruntalaipatti Kulam to Govindanallur Kulam. The
“dotted lines” also is found in the village map to show the running water
channel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
14.2. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, a portion
of the running water channel was encroached by Vadivel Fireworks and
portion of the building nos.74, 20,21 are constructed and hence, proceedings
under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is initiated and they ought to
have removed the said building to restore the water channel. The learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Vadivel Fireworks disputed the same and
was reluctant to accept the suggestion given by the learned Additional
Advocate General to dredge proper water channel connecting the said above
two kulams by removing the encroached portion of the building nos.74, 20
and 21. This Court declines to accept the argument of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Vadivel Fireworks regaring the running of the
water channel as discussed above and issues direction to dredge the water
channel connecting the two kulams to ensure uninterrupted free flow of water,
connecting the irrigation tanks and serving the agricultural needs of the
adjoining villages.
15. It is unfortunate that, for the past three years, the Government is
soliciting foreign investors to establish industries in this State, while, at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
same time, not extending meaningful assistance to local factory owners for
the promotion of indigenous industries.
16. In the present case, the issue pertains only to the provision of a
pathway beside the water channel, which could have been easily resolved by
the State Government by timely intervention and by implementing
appropriate measures to provide a separate vehicular access beside the
channel. However, no such steps were taken. As a result, the industry has
remained non-functional since 2014 solely due to prolonged litigation. It is
painful to note that the Government has been lackadaisical towards local
industrialists. Instead, its focus appears to be on attracting foreign
investments by extending extensive subsidies and tax exemptions, while
strangulating local industries from commencing operations. Such an approach
not only hinders the growth of indigenous industries but also defeats the
objective of achieving sustainable development.
17. Conclusion:
In view of the above findings, this Court is inclined to dispose of the
writ petitions filed by the Vadivel Pyro works and the connected Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
Interest Litigation with certain directions.
Accordingly, this Court disposes of the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.
1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014 and 20942 of 2013 so far as Vadivel Fireworks
with the following directions:
(i) The Vadivel Fireworks shall convey the 20-feet wide road in S.Nos.
226, 227, 228, 207, 230 as undertaken in the affidavit dated 19.01.2026
through proper documentation to the panchayat and lay the thar road at their
cost conforming to the norms and standard prescribed by the Public Works
Department and thereafter, the panchayat has to maintain the same.
(ii) The Vadiver Fireworks is further directed to remove the
encroachments made in the water channel running through the land as stated
in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.02.2026 and dredge a
proper water channel connecting the Peruntalaipatti Kulam and
Govindanallur Kulam at their cost.
(iii) Upon the completion of the above said conditions, the Panchayat
Union Council is directed to withdraw the impugned order dated 27.01.2014.
(iv)Since Jumbo fireworks have obtained all the required permissions
from all the department and the only allegation against them is that they are
constructed proposed industry within the eco-sensitive zone is found not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
correct, this Court issues direction to the official respondents to permit the
Jumbo firework company to run its industry.
(v) Both Jumbo Fireworks and Vadivel Fireworks are also hereby
restrained from conducting test firing of crackers for the reason that there is
possibility of fire accidents, in the event of obtaining the permissions from all
the authorities to commence the production of crackers.
(vi) Both Jumbo Fireworks and Vadivel Fireworks are hereby directed
to comply all the precautionary measures stated in the Factories Act in order
to avoid fatality in the fire accidents in the firecrackers units in view of the
apprehension expressed by the writ petitioner in the Public Interest
Litigations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if
any, are closed.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
pal/ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Environment and Forests,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
4.The President
Ayatharmam Village Panchayat,
Ayartharmam Village,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
5.The President,
Vellapottal Village Panchayat,
Vellapottal Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
6.The Inspector General of Forests,
Union of India,
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Wild life Division
Paryavaran Bhawan
CRO Compled, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
7.The Chief Controller of Explosives,
O/o.the Chief Controller of Explosives,
A Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur-440006, Maharastra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
8.The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives,
FRDC Complex, Near ESI Hospital,
Sivakasi West,
Sivakasi-626124,
Virudhunagar District.
9.The Commissioner,
Watrap Panchayat Union,
Watrap, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
10.The District Forest Officer,
Virudhunagar District.
11.The Commissioner cum
Block Development Officer,
Watrap, Srivilliputtur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.1726, 4962, 5738 of 2014
and 20942 of 2013
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ebsi/pal
Pre-order delivery made in
W.P.(MD)Nos.1726, 4962 & 5738 of
2014 and 20942 of 2013
17.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 07:18:00 pm )
