HC dismisses plea against renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad

“We have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned Notifications issued by the State Government renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad cities as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv cities...do not suffer from any illegality or any other legal vice,” said the bench

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday upheld the state government’s decision to rename Aurangabad and Osmanabad cities and revenue areas as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv, respectively.

Osmanabad is now known as Dharashiv

“We have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned Notifications issued by the State Government renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad cities as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv cities...do not suffer from any illegality or any other legal vice,” said the division bench of chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and justice Arif S Doctor while dismissing a bunch of petitions challenging the decisions.

The bench refused to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that under Section 4(1)(vi) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the name of a revenue area can be changed only when its limits are altered and not otherwise.

“Even otherwise, in our opinion, the power of alteration of a name of any object (in this case revenue areas) is intrinsic in the power to name such an object,” the bench said. “If an authority is empowered under the statutory provisions to name a revenue area, there cannot be any reason to deny such power to the same authority for altering or changing its name.”

In the case of Aurganbad, senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala argued that the people of the region had accepted Aurangabad as the name of the city and the revenue area for over 350 years. Still, the decision to rename the same is an attempt to create polarisation and division in civil society by forcing people to remember the past – involving Aurangzeb and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. It violated the basic constitutional values and morality touching upon the value of fraternity in society.

Advocate SB Talekar, who argued on behalf of the petitioners, challenging the renaming of Osmanabad, had submitted that the decision was an outcome of the political philosophy of the ruling party and was a calculated attempt to wipe out reminiscences and relics of Muslim rule from the public mind as well as history and therefore violative of the constitutional principle of secularism.

Advocate general Dr Birendra Saraf representing the state government opposed the petitions stating that there was no question of violation of fundamental rights of any citizen, as changing the name of revenue areas or that of a city or town is not at all concerned with the rights of citizens.