Tamil Nadu govt's Rs 1,200 crore Secretariat plan challenged, court rejects plea

The Madras High Court allowed withdrawal of a PIL opposing the proposed new Tamil Nadu Secretariat. The bench questioned its legal basis and signalled costs, underscoring the limits of PILs based on reports alone.The Madras High Court allowed withdrawal of a PIL opposing the proposed new Tamil Nadu Secretariat.Chennai,Oct 5, 2026 14:40 ISTThe Madras High Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a public interest litigation that sought a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to drop its proposal to build a new Secretariat at Foreshore Estate in Chennai.A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the order on the petition filed by advocate RS Tamilvendan after the court questioned the maintainability of the plea and the basis for seeking such a direction.When the matter came up for hearing, advocate Senthil Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had learnt through newspaper reports that the state government planned to build a new Secretariat at a cost of Rs 1,200 crore on land owned by the Tamil Nadu Housing Authority at Foreshore Estate.He argued that if the government built a new Secretariat, public money would be wasted and the interest and welfare of fishermen living in the area would be affected. At this point, the bench asked the counsel where the court had the power to direct the government not to construct a building at a particular place. The judges told him, "You must know what public interest litigation is. At least you must do some homework and research. Have you challenged the GO pertaining to the new Secretariat?The bench also said that in 2011, the shifting of the Secretariat was challenged and the High Court had dismissed that plea, and the Supreme Court had upheld the order. "You must say in what way the GO affects the public and public money is wasted. How the public is affected." When the court indicated that it would impose heavy costs, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.The bench then dismissed the plea as withdrawn, bringing the matter to a close.- Ends