The Madras High Court has dismissed as withdrawn a lawyer’s writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to build a new Secretariat and Legislative Assembly complex at Pattinampakkam in Chennai, after the Bench asked how public money was being wasted and said it was for the government to decide where to build.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday allowed advocate R.S. Tamilvendan to withdraw his writ petition against the Tamil Nadu government’s proposed new Secretariat building complex at Pattinampakkam (Foreshore Estate), Chennai, and dismissed it as withdrawn, after questioning whether a court could direct the government to build at a particular location [R.S. Tamilvendan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.].
A Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan heard the petition (W.P. No. 39889 of 2026).
Background
The State government has announced plans for a new Secretariat complex housing the Legislative Assembly and Secretariat with modern facilities, spread over about 20 lakh square feet at an estimated cost of Rs 1,200 crore. Chief Minister Vijay announced the project on the floor of the Assembly on September 3. The petitioner, a lawyer, challenged the decision to build at the proposed location.
The Bench’s questions
The Bench doubted its own jurisdiction to direct the choice of site and questioned how public money was being wasted.
How is public money being wasted? It’s for the government to build wherever they want. Where does the court have the power to direct the government to build at a particular location?
The Court noted that the Supreme Court had in 2022 declined to entertain a challenge to the construction of the new Parliament building, treating it as a policy decision, and that the Madras High Court itself had in 2011 declined relief against the shifting of the Secretariat.
In 2011 only this court said that relief against shifting of secretariat could not be granted.
Remarks on the petition
The Bench also found the pleadings lacking, asked the petitioner to state the purpose of the challenge, and warned that costs may have to be imposed on petitions of this kind.
Nothing mentioned. Just for publicity. Please mention what is the purpose of the challenge. Very casual approach. We’ll have to start imposing costs.
Outcome of the Madras High Court plea against the new Secretariat
The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the Court granted, and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not decide the merits of the challenge.
A separate challenge
A separate petition challenging the Government Order for the project has been filed by Mylapore MLA Dha Velu of the DMK. He contends that the project lacks the necessary environmental clearances and departmental approvals, and that the location would cause traffic congestion and disrupt the movement of about 20,000 school children studying in nearby schools. These are the contentions of that petitioner and are yet to be adjudicated.
Case Title: R.S. Tamilvendan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [W.P. No. 39889 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026