Mohd. Mustaq Ahemad v. State Of Maharashtra ., Bombay High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Writ Petitions Nos. 5565 and 5566. of 1995

Attorney(S)

M.A Latif
For State: A.M Kanade, Government Pleader

Judges

N.P Chapalgaonker
S.S Dani, JJ.

Acts

sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
decision.6. Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
section 47 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949,
section.7. Clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 4
ARTICLE 21 A CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ARTICLE 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Sub-section (3) of said section 4

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

These two writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 5566 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1995) were heard together because they raise identical questions. Writ Petition No. 5566 of 1995 challenged a Notification issued by the Revenue and Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra dated 9-11-1995 that published a draft notification intimating the State Government's intention to rename several revenue areas and civic units: Aurangabad Revenue Division as Marathwada Division, Aurangabad District as Sambhajinagar district, Aurangabad Sub-Division as Sambhajinagar Sub-Division, Aurangabad taluka as Sambhajinagar Taluka and Aurangabad city as Sambhajinagar City. The draft notification invited objections to be submitted by 8-12-1995 and stated the Government proposed to consider the draft thereafter.

Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1995 challenged a Notification dated 9-11-1995 by which the Government proposed to alter the name of the city of Aurangabad to Sambhajinagar and consequentially amend an earlier Government Notification dated 3-12-1982 to substitute references to "the city of Sambhajinagar" for "the city of Aurangabad". That notification likewise called for objections to be filed by 8-12-1995 and stated the Government would thereafter consider the draft.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State Government has jurisdiction and power under the relevant law(s) to rename a city where a Municipal Corporation exists (i.e., whether renaming Aurangabad is permissible).
Whether the power to name or rename under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (specifically section 4) is limited to occasions when revenue areas are altered by bifurcation, amalgamation or change of boundaries, or whether it extends generally to naming/renaming revenue areas including towns and cities.
Whether changing the name of the city would violate or adversely affect the citizens' fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by impacting cultural heritage, and whether fundamental duties under Article 51-A(f) are justiciable in that context.
Whether the challenge to the Notifications is premature given that the Government had invited and was to consider objections before taking any final decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented by Shri M.A. Latif)

There is no power under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 to rename any city in which a Municipal Corporation exists; hence the proposal to rename the city of Aurangabad is without jurisdiction.
Although section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 contains a power to name and rename districts, subdivisions, talukas and villages, that power is exercisable only when a new area is constituted because of bifurcation or amalgamation of existing areas; therefore the Notifications are without jurisdiction.
The citizens of Aurangabad have a right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to life includes preservation of cultural heritage; changing the city's name would affect that right.
Invoking Article 51-A(f), it was argued that preservation of heritage is a duty of citizens and, by parity, also a duty of the State; the petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions (including M.C. Mehta (II) v. Union of India and Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India) to submit that fundamental duties are justiciable and that heritage protection falls within the ambit of Article 21.

Respondent / State's Arguments (as presented by Shri A.M. Kanade, Government Pleader)

The State Government has power to name and rename divisions, districts, subdivisions, talukas and villages under section 47 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; the statutory definition of "village" (section 2(43)) includes a town or city, therefore the State can name/rename a city.
The petitions are premature because the State Government had called for objections and had yet to consider them; the Government would consider the objections and take an appropriate decision thereafter.
A statement was made before the Court that the State Government will consider all objections with a "cool mind" and decide only after taking those objections into account.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
M.C. Mehta (II) v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471	Reliance by petitioner to submit that fundamental duties are justiciable and a writ would lie if something is done contrary to those duties.	The opinion records that the petitioner relied on this case to support justiciability of fundamental duties; the opinion does not describe further application of this case in the court's reasoning.
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251; AIR 1989 SC 549	Establishes that protection of tradition, culture and heritage can fall within the expanded concept of Article 21, but relief under Article 21 must be confined to direct, overt and tangible acts which threaten the fullness of life.	The Court quoted this authority to explain that although cultural heritage can be part of the right to life, judicial relief under Article 21 requires demonstration of a direct, overt and tangible threat. Applying that principle, the Court found nothing on record showing how mere change of name would affect citizens' life or culture and relied on the standard articulated in this precedent to reject the Article 21 claim.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the statutory provisions and the factual context step-by-step:

Statutory interpretation of section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
- The Court quoted section 4(1)(vi) which empowers the State Government to "alter the limits of any such revenue area so constituted by amalgamation, division or in any manner whatsoever, or abolish any such revenue area and may name and alter the name of any such revenue area" and to deem references in laws or instruments to the old name as references to the new name unless otherwise provided.
- The Court emphasized sub-section (3) which provides that divisions, districts, subdivisions, talukas, circles, sazas and villages existing at the commencement of the Code shall continue under the names they bear unless otherwise altered under this section.
- The Court concluded that section 4 is a declaration of executive power to name or rename any revenue area (including a town or city since "village" includes town or city) and that nothing in the provision supports the petitioner's submission that the power is limited only to situations involving alteration of boundaries. The Court read the provision as extending to general renaming power and not qualified solely by boundary changes.
Consequential effect on Municipal Corporation notification:
- The Court noted that the Urban Development Department notification challenged in Writ Petition No. 5565 is consequential in nature; if the State Government changes the name under section 4, earlier Municipal Corporation notifications (such as that of 3-12-1982 constituting Aurangabad Municipal Corporation) would have to be amended in conformity with sub-section (3) of section 4.
Article 21 and cultural heritage argument:
- The Court considered the petitioner's reliance on Ramsharan Autyanuprasi, acknowledging the Supreme Court's observation that "life in its expanded horizons today includes all that give meaning to a man's life including his tradition, culture and heritage."
- However, the Court also relied on the companion observation from Ramsharan that relief under Article 21 must be confined to "some direct, overt and tangible act which threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community."
- The Court found that the petitioner had placed nothing on record to demonstrate how the mere change of the city's name would concretely affect the life of the citizens with respect to culture and heritage. Thus the Article 21 claim lacked the necessary factual foundation of a direct, overt and tangible threat.
Consideration of Government's procedural undertaking:
- The Court took into account the Government Pleader's statement that the State Government would consider all objections filed in respect of the draft notifications "by cool mind" and take a decision thereafter. The Court indicated there was no basis to presume the Government would fail to consider relevant aspects and opinions of citizens.
Scope of judicial review:
- The Court observed that naming or renaming of administrative units and civic entities is essentially a political decision tied to the concept of propriety and, as such, is generally subject to limited judicial review. Given that, and the absence of a demonstrated direct harm to fundamental rights, the Court concluded it would not entertain the petitions.

Holding and Implications

Final Holding: Both writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 5566 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1995) are rejected summarily.

Direct implications and consequences:

The Court rejected the contention that the Notifications were without jurisdiction, concluding that section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 empowers the State to name and rename revenue areas (including towns and cities) and is not restricted to situations involving boundary alteration.
The Urban Development Department notification challenged was characterized as consequential and subject to amendment if the State Government exercises its renaming power under section 4.
The petitioner's Article 21 claim based on cultural heritage was not sustained because there was no factual showing of a direct, overt and tangible threat to life or culture resulting from a mere change of name.
The Court emphasized the limited scope for judicial interference in political decisions of naming/renaming and, accordingly, declined to exercise judicial review to upset the draft Notifications at the stage they were issued.
The opinion expressly states that the rejection should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the draft notifications nor as the Court expressing any opinion about the merits of renaming the city; the decision is confined to disposition of the petitions before the Court.
No new legal precedent was formulated by the Court beyond its statutory interpretation and application to the facts of these petitions.

Order accordingly.

Show full summary ...

Mohd. Mustaq Ahemad v. State Of Maharashtra .

N.P Chapalgaonker, J.:— These two petitions raise identical question and, therefore, are taken together. Writ Petition No. 5566 of 1995 challenges a Notification issued by the Revenue and Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra on 9-11-1995 publishing a draft notification intimating the intention of the State Government to rename Aurangabad Revenue Division as Marathwada Division, Aurangabad District as Sambhajinagar district and Aurangabad Sub-Division as Sambhajinagar Sub-Division, Aurangabad taluka as Sambhajinagar Taluka and Aurangabad city as Sambhajinagar City. By this Notification, objections, if any, were called from all persons likely to be affected, to be submitted with the Government on or before 8-12-1995 and the Government proposed to consider the draft notification anytime thereafter. Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1995 challenges Notification of 9-11-1995 by which the Government proposed to alter the name of the city of Aurangabad to city of Sambhajinagar and consequentially proposed to amend Government Notification dated 3-12-1982 by substituting word ‘the city of Sambhajinagar’ for the words ‘the city of Aurangabad’. This notification called for objections from the affected persons which were to be filed with the Government on or before 8-12-1995 and thereafter Government proposed to take into consideration draft notification.

2. Shri M.A Latif, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that there is no power under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, to rename any city wherein the Corporation exists and, therefore, proposal to rename city of Aurangabad is totally without jurisdiction. He further contended that though section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 does have a power to name and rename any district, sub-division, taluka or village but that power is exercisable only when a new area is constituted because of the bifurcation or amalgamation of the existing areas and, therefore, both the Notifications issued by the State Government are without jurisdiction.

3. Shri Latif further contends that the citizens of Aurangabad have a right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and right to life includes the life to preserve the cultural heritage and, therefore, any change in the city of Aurangabad which is very much forming part of culture of the citizens in the town is likely to affect the right of living as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri Latif also invited our attention to Article 51-A(f) pointing out that it is the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve rich heritage our composite culture and submitted that whatever is the duty of citizens of India is equally duty of the State of India and, therefore. State cannot do anything which is contrary to the citizens duties as pointed out in Article 51-A. Shri Latif relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C Mehta (II) v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471 to submit that fundamental duties are justiciable and a writ would lie if something contrary to the duty is done. Shri Latif cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251 : AIR 1989 SC 549 to submit that the heritage forms part of the life of the citizens and petition would lie to protect this fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri A.M Kanade, learned Government Pleader opposing the petition, submitted that the State Government has power to name and rename any division, district, sub-division, taluka or village under section 47 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and as per the definition of village given in section 2(43) “village” includes a town or city and therefore, the State Government has power to name or rename any city, division, district, sub-division, taluka and village. Shri Kanade further contends that the petition is premature inasmuch as the State Government has yet to consider the objections filed and after considering those objections, State Government will take appropriate decision.

6. section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 so far as is relevant for the purposes of this petition is quoted below:—

4. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify—

(i) the districts (including the City of Bombay) which constitute a division;

(ii) the sub-divisions which constitute a district;

(iii) the talukas which constitute sub-division;

(iv) the villages which constitute a taluka;

(v) the local area which constitute a village; and

(vi) alter the limits of any such revenue area so constituted by amalgamation, division or in any manner whatsoever, or abolish any such revenue area and may name and alter the name of any such revenue area; and in any case where any area is renamed, then all references in any law or instrument or other document to the area under its original name shall be deemed to be references to the area as renamed, unless expressly otherwise provided:

(2) ………

(3) The divisions, districts, sub-divisions, talukas, circles, sazas and villages existing at the commencement of this Code shall continue under the names they bear respectively to be the divisions, districts, sub-divisions, talukas, circles, sazas and villages, unless otherwise altered under this section.

7. Clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 4 speaks about the alteration of the limits of revenue area so constituted by amalgamation, division or in any manner whatsoever and gives power to name or rename the areas and provides that after name and/or renaming the areas, reference to any local law, instrument or other document to the area under its original name shall be deemed to be references to the area as renamed unless expressly otherwise provided. Therefore, section 4 is a declaration of the executive power of the State to name or rename any revenue area either it be a division, a district, a sub-division, a taluka or a village which includes town or city. There is nothing in this sub-section which supports Mr. Latif's submission that the power can be exercised only in case there is alteration in the boundaries of revenue area. Sub-section (3) of said section 4 makes the position clear. It says that the divisions, districts, sub-divisions, talukas, circles, sazas and villages shall continue under the names they bear respectively unless otherwise altered under this section. Therefore, the power exercisable by the State Government under section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 would extend to renaming any revenue area and it is not qualified by any clause limiting power only at the time of alteration of the boundaries. The Notification issued by Urban Development Department which is subject matter of the challenge in Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1995, is only consequential in nature that if the State Government changes the name then the Notification of 3-12-1982 constituting a Municipal Corporation for city of Aurangabad will have to be suitably amended giving effect to what is provided under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Therefore, submission of Shri Latif that both the notifications are totally without jurisdiction will have to be discarded.

8. Next submission of Shri Latif is based on assumption that the name of the city is a part of cultural heritage which in turn forms part of the life of the citizens living in that city and any change would affect the right of life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Ramsharan Autyanuprasi cited by Mr. Latif, petitioner sought to bring to the notice of the Judges, the total disarray caused by the arbitrary and high-handed running of the premier institution of ancient art, culture and history in Rajasthan namely, the “Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust” and wanted to seek certain directions. Learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed—

“It is true that life in its expanded horizons today includes all that give meaning to a man's life including his tradition, culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

9. But at the same time, they reminded—

“Yet, when one seeks relief for breach of Article 21, one must confine oneself to some direct, overt and tangible act which threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community.”

and considering the facts of the case, Supreme Court was pleased to reject the petition filed before it under Article 32.

10. Though Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently submitted before us that the name of the city of Aurangabad is integral part of heritage enjoyed by the citizens of the city, nothing is placed on record as to how life of the citizens in respect of culture and heritage would be affected mere by change of the name. There is another aspect which we will have to take into consideration. Learned Government Pleader Shri Kanade made a Statement before us that the State Government will consider all the objections filed in respect of the two notifications impugned in these writ petitions by cool mind and will take a decision only thereafter. We need not presume that the State Government will not consider all the aspects of the question and will not take into consideration various shades of opinion expressed by the citizens.

11. Naming or renaming of division, district, taluka or city or village or even street, bridge or lane or an institution like school, college or university do not really further the cause of the welfare of the people. These are political decisions dependent on the concept of propriety of the authority. Therefore, there is always limit to the judicial review of such decision and we do not propose therefore, to entertain these petitions. We reject both the writ petitions summarily. Rejection of these petitions shall not be interpreted by the State Government that we have either endorsed draft notification or expressed any opinion about renaming of the city.

Order accordingly.

Mohd. Mustaq Ahemad v. State Of Maharashtra .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented by Shri M.A. Latif)

Respondent / State's Arguments (as presented by Shri A.M. Kanade, Government Pleader)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Mohd. Mustaq Ahemad v. State Of Maharashtra .

Comments