The Bombay High Court has asked the Union of India and the Maharashtra government on Tuesday whether norms were followed before changing the names of Aurangabad and Osmanabad cities in Maharashtra.
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne also asked the state government if the authorities could use the new names in official communications before the name change process was completed.
Last year, the Maharashtra cabinet of Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis approved the names Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Sambhaji Nagar and Dharashiv, respectively. On July 16, 2022, the two-member cabinet passed the Government Resolution to change the names, which was then forwarded to the Central Government.
The bench asked the lawyer representing the Centre if it had “called for objections” during the hearing on Tuesday. “We just received the proposal,” the lawyer stated.
The bench informed the petitioners that the Union had yet to call for objections and that they had approached the court because the procedure had not been completed. The bench then questioned the petitioner, “Who is required to call for objections and under what rule?”
The petitioners argued that the state should have called for objections after receiving the name change proposal from the city corporations. Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, representing one of the petitioners, stated, “The procedure they are using is completely in violation of settled laws.”
The bench questioned government Pleader PP Kakade about the provision under which the state government passed the resolution and whether objections were called for. Kakade requested more time to respond to the court’s query.
Furthermore, Advocate Pradnya Talekar, who represents a petitioner who wants Osmanabad’s name changed to Dharashiv, cited an official communication from the Maharashtra government dated January 16, 2023. In the communication, the Principal Secretary of the Maharashtra government’s Public Health Department wrote a letter to various authorities, including those in Osmanabad, referring to the officer as Dharashiv.
Talekar submitted, “They have already referred to it as Dharashiv without any notification. Despite claiming on the one hand that it is still pending before the Central government, they are already utilising it in official communications instead of Osmanabad.”
The court decided to further hear the petitions on February 15, adding that, “We want the complete details.”
