The Madras High Court campus does not face power disruption even for a minute, only because the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) had set up the infrastructure required for routing energy from multiple grid sources, including the Basin bridge gas turbine and Seven Wells sub station, Advocate General Vijay Narayan told the court.

Appearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, the A-G said, the High Court complex had a sanctioned load of 5,500 KVA and that the High Court Registry had submitted an indent for an additional load of 2,500 KVA for ongoing constructions and renovations on the court campus.

Despite such requirements, “the High Court does not suffer power disruption even for a minute,” the A-G told the Bench in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition, which sought a direction to the State government and TNPDCL to return to the High Court Registry about 15 grounds of land allotted in 1990 for establishing the 110/33/11 KV Esplanade sub-station.

The PIL plea had been filed by advocate M.T. Arunan who claimed that TNPDCL had constructed buildings on only one-third of the land allotted by the High Court Registry and the rest was open to sky. He also said that TNPDCL was using the property for electricity bill collection from the consumers residing in nearby localities such as Mannadi and Muthialpet.

Highlighting the difficulties faced by the lawyers and litigants due to insufficient vehicle parking space on the High Court campus, the litigant said that the vacant land in possession of TNPDCL could be put to better use such as constructing additional court halls, vehicle parking bays, and other public amenties if it was returned to the High Court administration.

Opposing the plea, the A-G said, open spaces between transformers were mandatory safety clearances and they were required for heavy cranes and trucks during maintenance or equipment replacement. He also said, the Esplanade sub-station serves not only the High Court but also criticial institutions such as the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai Port Trust, and Southern Railway.

After recording his submissions, the judges wrote: “This court acknowledges the expanding infrastructure needs of the judiciary. However, public utility services like power distribution infrastructure cannot be disrupted without technical feasibility. As stated on record, the 110 KV sub-station provides uninterrupted power supply to the High Court complex itself, which is currently expanding its load requirements. Removing or shifting this sub-station is technically unviable and would endanger the power supply to the High Court and surrounding essential emergency services like hospitals.”

The Division Bench also stated that land allocation and urban planning between government departments were policy matters, and courts would not ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus to relocate critical power infrastructure, especially when the subject property was managed for providing utility services.

“In our considered opinion, the true spirit of public interest lies in maintaining uninterrupted power supply to both the judiciary and key public facilities,” the Bench said and dismissed the PIL petition.

Published - August 21, 2026 04:20 pm IST