31 January,2023 09:55 PM IST | Mumbai | PTI
File Photo/PTI
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought to know from the Maharashtra government if it had called for objections and suggestions before deciding to rename Aurangabad and Osmanabad cities in the state.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne also directed the Union government to show if any proposal was submitted by the state government to it over the change of names.
The court asked the state government if authorities could use the new names in official communication without the completion of the final process to change the names.
Also read: Family driver, accomplice held for robbing 70-year-old Mumbai woman at gunpoint
ALSO READ
Badlapur encounter: High court flays police for not reconstructing crime scene
Atrocities case: IRS officer Sameer Wankhede moves HC seeking independent probe
Shivaji Maharaj statue collapse: Court grants bail to consultant Chetan Patil
Maharashtra Elections: No illegality in mobile phone ban at polling booths: HC
No urgent hearing on plea against appointment of Rashmi Shukla as DGP: HC
The Maharashtra cabinet of Chief Minister Eknath Shinde had last year approved the name of Aurangabad as Sambhaji Nagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv.
On July 16, 2022, a Government Resolution was passed by the two-member cabinet, comprising Shinde and his deputy Devendra Fadnavis, for changing the names and a proposal was then forwarded to the Centre.
Two public interest litigations were filed in HC challenging this decision.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the bench asked the lawyer representing the Union government if it had called for objections. The lawyer said, "We have just received the proposal."
Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Pradnya Talekar told the court that the state government ought to have called for objections and suggestions.
The procedure that they are following is completely in violation of settled laws, said advocate Yusuf Muchhala representing the second petitioner.
The court then directed the state government to inform under which provision it had taken the decision and if objections and suggestions were called for.
The bench posted the petitions for hearing on February 15.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.
