Madras High Court dismisses case against building Tamil Nadu’s new Secretariat at Pattinapakkam

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) dismissed as withdrawn a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by a lawyer, seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to abandon its plan to construct a new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex on 25.55 acres of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) land at Pattinapakkam (Foreshore Estate) in Chennai.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan permitted the petitioner, R.S. Tamilvendan of Chennai, to withdraw the case without granting any kind of liberty. The litigant took the call after the judges said that the case had been filed “casually” and “for publicity” with no research on the matter and without raising valid grounds.

What did the Bench say?

During the course of the hearing, the Chief Justice asked: “How can you say that it is wastage of public money? It is for the government to construct [the Secretariat] wherever it wants. Please tell us, what is the power of the court to direct the government to construct a particular building at this place or that place? Where is that power? There may be hundreds of reasons, but where is the power?”

Justice Murugan said: “You have filed a public interest litigation petition to stall a project. See your affidavit. It runs for just two pages and has only two relevant paragraphs. You should have done some research, collected proper materials, and explained to the court why are you challenging the government’s decision; only then can this court consider your plea. Here, there are just two paragraphs.”

The Division Bench also recalled that it was not the first time that a case had been filed in the High Court challenging the government’s decision to shift the Legislative Assembly and Secretariat to a new location. They pointed out that the High Court had dismissed a similar case filed about a decade ago on the ground that courts could not interfere with the government’s policy decisions.

Even the Supreme Court had categorically held the same. “Therefore, we are asking the very first question as to from where do we get the power to issue a writ of mandamus to the government to abandon its plan?” the Chief Justice asked the petitioner’s counsel and said, the petitioner would have known about the previous decisions had he done some research.

“You have not even made an attempt to do any research. When you come up with a public interest litigation petition, is it not your duty to work on all this?” Justice Murugan asked. The Chief Justice said: “In fact, such cases require the imposition of costs. You just want publicity, that’s all.” However, the Bench refrained from imposing costs, since the petitioner’s counsel chose to withdraw the case.