CHENNAI : How is public money being wasted? Where does the court have the power to direct the government to build at a particular location?” the Madras High Court asked while hearing a plea challenging the Tamil Nadu Government’s decision to construct a new Secretariat building at Pattinampakkam.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice S.A.Dharmadhikari and Justice G.Arul Murugan made the observations while hearing lawyer R.S. Tamilvendan’s plea challenging the Tamil Nadu Government’s decision to construct a new Secretariat building at Pattinampakkam (Foreshore Estate), Chennai.

Tamilvendan noted that on September 3, CM Vijay announced on the Assembly floor that a new building complex comprising the Legislative Assembly and the Secretariat, with modern facilities, would be constructed in Chennai over an area of 20 lakh sq.ft. at an estimated cost of Rs.1,200 crore.

The petitioner further stated that Fort St. George was the ideal location for the Assembly and Secretariat as it was close to the Central Railway Station, Madras High Court, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and other public facilities.

He said the DMK government built a new complex on Anna Salai between 2006 and 2011, but the subsequent AIADMK government converted it into a government hospital.

He argued that the existing Fort St. George buildings could be renovated instead of spending Rs.1,200 crore on a new complex, especially amid the government’s financial crisis. He also said dropping the proposal would protect the interests of fishermen living in and around Pattinampakkam.

During the hearing, the Bench asked, “How is public money being wasted? It is for the government to build wherever it wants. Where does the court have the power to direct the government to build at a particular location?”

The Bench noted that the High Court had dismissed a similar plea in 2011 and that the Supreme Court had refused to entertain a challenge to the new Parliament building in 2022, terming it a policy decision.

Criticising Tamilvendan for failing to produce supporting materials, the court warned that costs would be imposed on such petitions.

Following the remarks, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea. The court allowed the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.