Supreme Court rejects plea against renaming of Aurangabad, Osmanabad

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the appeals filed against the decision of the Maharashtra State authorities to rename city and revenue divisions of Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv respectively [Shaikh Masud Ismail Shaikh and ors v Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti upheld the Bombay High Court order in this regard and said that High Court's decision was a well reasoned one. The Bench further said that different persons will have different points of view on such matters and the Court cannot examine the same in exercise of its powers of judicial review."See, for people living in an area, there will always be agreement and disagreement over name of the place. Should courts solve it by judicial review? If they have power to name, then they can rename tooo. It is a reasoned order (of the Bombay High Court). Why should it be faulted," the Court asked.The Court also said the State had broadly followed the procedure laid down under the law before changing the names of the two cities. .The Bombay High Court had in May dismissed petitions challenging the renaming of the cities..The previous Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government under Uddhav Thackeray had decided to rename both Aurangabad and Osmanabad in its cabinet meeting of June 29, 2021. Aurangabad city and revenue division were renamed as 'Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar' while Osmanabad was renamed as 'Dharashiv'.The new government led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on July 16, 2022 re-affirmed the decision of the MVA government. Post this, a clutch of petitions came to be filed before the High Court by individuals including the residents of the respective districts. The Maharashtra government claimed that the change in the name of ‘Osmanabad’ to ‘Dharashiv’ neither led to any religious or communal hatred nor did it cause any rift between religious groups.The High Court rejected the petitions leading to the appeal before the top court..Advocate SB Talekar, appearing for petitioners, said that the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules was not followed."There was no draft notification here inviting objections and suggestions. So procedure under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (was not adhered to). There was no alteration of territorial boundaries," he said.The Court, however, examined the same and said that the procedure was broadly followed."We are finding that they have broadly followed procedure that is not unreasonable," the Bench remarked. "It has not been," Talekar said. "There will always be people who say it should be A, others B or C. Decision has to be taken by the State. All your contentions have been dealt with by the High Court and reasonably. Sorry, we won't interfere," the Bench made it clear. The Court also said that the case was not comparable to that of Allahabad's name change which is pending before court and was highlighted by Talekar in his arguments."It is not comparable to Allahabad," the Court said while rejecting the plea..The appeal before the apex court was filed through advocate Pulkit Agarwal.