The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra state government to postpone the name change of Aurangabad taluka, sub-division, district, village, or division until the final hearing of the case on April 24. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne made the directive during a hearing of a petition filed by Mushtaq Ahmadu, president of the Aurangabad Anti-Name Change Action Committee, against the name change. The government had filed a 100-page reply to justify the name change, but the petitioner's counsel and others objected to it, prompting the bench to give the petitioner until April 24 to file its reply to the government's reply.
Petitioners claim violation of government guidelines and demand justice
Mushtaq Ahmed, the petitioner and president of the Aurangabad Anti-Name Change Action Committee, claims that the state government's decision violates the central government's guideline of 1953. The guideline instructs against changing the name of a historical city and prohibits changing names on communal grounds or giving a name that already belongs to a village or taluk. Ahmed further asserts that Aurangabad has been a historical city for 388 years, and its name has been recorded from local to global history. He filed the petition against the change of name and has the support of the Muslim Representative Council, national organizations, Ulemas, Imams, political parties, and responsible members of society who do selfless social service.
Background of the case and legal proceedings
Ahmed's action committee filed the petition against the name change eight months ago, and eminent lawyers of the country, including Advocate Yusuf Machhala, Advocate Sagheer Khan, Advocate Ghulam Rasool, and Advocate Nawaz Hinda, have been following the case continuously. The High Court had sought a response from the government, but it delayed filing the response. On February 24, the Center issued a NOC for the name change of Aurangabad city, and on the same day, the state government decided to change the name. However, Ahmed claims that no objections were called, no hearing was held, and no legal procedure was followed. He further asserts that the government's notification seeking objections to the name change was also illegal. Despite seeking a stay from the High Court, it refused to grant the stay, citing the name change to Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar had come into action.
Future legal steps and support
Ahmed states that the way to approach the Supreme Court has not been closed and that they will go to the Supreme Court for justice if necessary. He also claims that some people are trying to provoke the people and youth by making baseless and misleading statements. However, his action committee has the support of various groups, including the MIM political party. At the hearing of the case in the High Court, Ahmed and other members of the action committee were present in person.
Conclusion
The Aurangabad name change case has been ongoing for several months, with the government's decision being challenged by the Aurangabad Anti-Name Change Action Committee. The Bombay High Court has now directed the government to postpone the name change until the final hearing on April 24, allowing the petitioner time to reply to the government's 100-page response. The petitioner claims that the state government's decision violates the central government's guideline of 1953, and they have the support of various groups in seeking justice.
