Chennai, Oct 5:
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a stay on the proposed construction of a new Secretariat at Pattinapakkam after the petitioner sought to withdraw the case.
The petition was filed by Kodambakkam-based advocate Tamilvendhan, challenging the proposed construction of the Secretariat on 25 acres belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at Pattinapakkam.
In his petition, Tamilvendhan said Chief Minister Vijay had announced the construction of the new Secretariat in the Assembly and that a government order was subsequently issued on September 8.
The petitioner contended that at a time when the government had stated that it was facing financial constraints, spending around Rs 1,200 crore on a new Secretariat was unnecessary. Instead, the existing Secretariat at Fort St George could be renovated and continued to be used, thereby saving taxpayersâ money, he argued.
He also submitted that shifting the Secretariat from its present location, which is close to Chennai Central railway station, the Madras High Court and the Government General Hospital, would make it difficult for members of the public to access government offices.
The petitioner further claimed that the Pattinapakkam land had been earmarked for construction of houses and using it for the Secretariat would affect housing schemes for economically weaker sections as well as the interests of fishermen. He sought cancellation of the project and an interim stay on construction until disposal of the case.
The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice S A Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. The judges questioned how the proposed construction amounted to wastage of government money and under which law the court had the power to direct the government not to construct a new Secretariat.
The judges also pointed out that the petitioner had filed only a two-page petition seeking a stay and observed that he should have collected supporting evidence and substantiated his claims.
The bench noted that the High Court had dismissed a similar petition in 2011 challenging the construction of a new Secretariat, holding that courts could not interfere with a policy decision of the government. The judges also referred to the Supreme Courtâs refusal to interfere with a petition challenging the construction of the new Parliament building.
The judges observed that public interest litigation should not be filed merely for publicity and said costs should be imposed to discourage such petitions.
Following the observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the case. The bench allowed the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.