Chhatrapati Sambhaijnagar: Petitioners Mohammad Hisham Osmani and Sanjay Waghmare have filed a petition in Bombay High Court challenging the state gazette to rename Aurangabad division, district, and taluka name as Chhatrapati Sambhaijnagar.
Talking to UNI on Friday morning, Osmani said on September 15, the state government published a gazette and announced that Aurangabad division, Aurangabad district, Aurangabad taluka, Aurangabad village has been renamed to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
The new naming board was inaugurated on September 16 in the presence of Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, and Revenue Minister Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil during the special cabinet meeting here.
He said the notification of this name change has been challenged in the Bombay High Court and will be kept for further hearing in a few days. The Government of India, state governments, divisional commissioners, and collectors have been made respondents in this petition.
The petition has been filed through senior advocate S.S. Kazi.
A hearing of the earlier petition against the renaming of Aurangabad city will be held on October 4, 2023.
The date for hearing on the renaming of Aurangabad division, district, taluka, and village has not yet been fixed.
The All India Muslim Numainda Council has announced its support for the petition, said Osmani.
The petitioners have raised the issue that, as per the 1953 guidelines of the Union Home Department, the name of the historic city district cannot be changed, but still, how is the government changing the name of Aurangabad city and district despite it being a historical city and tourism capital of Maharashtra? It is mentioned in these guidelines that naming cities and villages after national heroes merely to show respect based on local patriotism should be avoided. Then, how was the notification to change the name of the division, district, taluka, and village issued? The government, without taking any hearing on objections filed by the citizens, which were filed in lakhs by the citizens who issued this Gazette, questioned Osmani.
The government did not consider the effect of the name change on the tourism business and trade, he pointed out.
The government is wasting time changing names instead of trying to solve the problems of farmers and giving employment to unemployed youths. When it is clearly mentioned in the 1966 MLRC Act that cities and district divisions that were in existence before the commencement of this act will continue with the same name only, and the report given by the revenue department also states that the city and district of Aurangabad have been in existence since long before the formation of the state of Maharashtra, i.e., before May 1, 1960, then how come the city name can be changed in this act only? The petitioners also made the contention that the MLRC Act of 1966 doesn’t allow the government to rename historical places and existing places but only allows the government to name or rename newly constituted revenue areas constituted by alteration, amalgamation, abolishment, or whatsoever manner for establishing a new administrative setup. Then how can Aurangabad Taluka, district, or division be renamed through this act?