'State Can't Chase Foreign Investment While Ignoring Local Industries': Madras High Court Allows Fireworks Units Near Srivilliputhur Sanctuary

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Government was having a lackadaisical approach to local industries, but at the same time, extending subsidies and tax exemptions for the foreign investors. The court noted that such approach defeated the object of achieving sustainable development.

“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,” the court observed.

The court was dealing with pleas concerning the establishment of a fireworks manufacturing unit in Virudhanagar district. Public Interest litigations were filed against granting a permit for establishing the unit, alleging that the proposed units were in close proximity to 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. One firework manufacturing unit had also approached the court seeking permission to carry on the business.

The persons who had filed the public interest litigation had argued that the firework units – Jumbo fireworks and Vadivel Pyro works, were constructed and working without obtaining permission from the Panchayat Union Council as per the requirements of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1995. It was submitted that production activities near the eco-sensitive zones and the buffer zone might result in forest fires which would be detrimental to the wildlife.

It was also argued that Vadivel Pyro Works had obstructed water channel running through the factory premises by putting up construction on it and the same had paralysed the agricultural activities in the surrounding areas. It was also argued that permission was not obtained under Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act for converting agricultural land for development purpose.

Jumbo Firework opposed the pleas and submitted that it had obtained all the requisite permission necessary for running the unit. It was argued that the construction was 4.3 kilometre away from the eco sensitive zone and was in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government in 2019.

Vadivel Pyro Works argued that it had submitted the building plan for approval to the local authority on April 1, 2013 and when this application was not considered for 3 months, permission was deemed to be granted under Section 220(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. It was submitted that the construction activities were commenced only after the deemed approval and after completion, application was submitted to the authorities for approval of building plan. It was submitted that the building plan was approved with conditions, and two of the conditions were challenged in the court and the same was pending.

With respect to Jumbo Fireworks, the court agreed that the unit was located 2.63 kilometres outside the eco-sensitive zone and since they had obtained all the necessary permission, they were entitled to commence the factory.

With respect to Vadivel Pyro Works, the court noted that a panchayat laid road was running through the proposed factory which would cause disturbance to both the functioning of the factory and the road users. The court also noted that a portion of running water channel was encroached by the unit.

The court thus directed the unit to convey a 20-feet wide road to the Panchayat through proper documentation and lay that road at their own expense as an alternative for the road that was running through its premises. The court also directed the unit to remove the encroachments made in the water channel and dredge a proper water channel at its cost.

The court lamented that the issue involved in the case could have been resolved through timely intervention by the state. The court noted that no steps had been taken to resolve the issue because of which the industry remained non-functional since 2014. This prompted the court to remark that the government had a lackadaisical approach to the local industrialists.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Mahaboob Fazil for M/s. Lajapathi Roy Associates, Ms.D.Geetha

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ajmalkhan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. S. P. Maharajan, Special Government Pleader, Mr.R . Nandakumar, Mr.S.Silambannan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Karthik, M/s.Profex Associates, Mr.Sivaji, Mr.P.Paul Pandi Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr.P.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Venkatesh

Case Title: MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.1726 of 2014