Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a PIL which had objected to the proposal to name at least three public projects after Balasaheb Thackeray, the founder of Shiv Sena.The High Court said the petition did not serve any ‘public interest’ and dismissed it. A bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Nitin Jamdar was seized of a PIL filed by Mahadeeo Ghule, an advocate by profession. Ghule had challenged a proposal of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation seeking to charge one rupee extra on every ticket sold to a passenger. He claimed that the MSRTC planned to make use of this surcharge for helping passengers who sustained injuries while travelling in buses.
The petition further claimed that the MSRTC had plans for a super speciality hospital, an engineering college and a passenger insurance scheme. In his petition, Ghule highlighted the fact that the MSRTC proposes to name all the three proposed projects -- hospital, college and insurance scheme -- after the ‘Hindu patriarch’ Bal Thackeray.
“All these titles submitted to the Maharashtra government for its approval are concerned with political parties; hence they are objectionable. Because, each party in power will follow the same pattern and append the names of their founder/leaders to government schemes,” Ghule argued before the bench. He further contended argued that instead of naming the projects after Bal Thackeray, the MSRTC could have proposed the names of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B R Ambedkar, Mahatma Phule, Swami Vivekanand, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam etc.
“It could have given the names of any other philosopher, thinker or social reformer, who are not associated with any political party. Such names would find general acceptance. Therefore, to maintain peace and harmony, the MSRTC cannot be permitted to use politically oriented names for the schemes,” Ghule argued further. Having heard his brief submissions, the judges found his plea to be vague as he first highlighted the issue of charging one rupee extra from the passengers of MSRTC and then went on to another strand i.e. the issue of naming public schemes.
“What is the relevance of this (naming the schemes) on the issue projected? We fail to understand. Be that as it may, the MSRTC has the necessary permission from the government to do so,” CJ Nandrajog said. “Keeping in view the fact that the money generated is used for public good, we terminate proceedings on the present petition for the reason that it is not the case of Mr. Ghule that the MSRTC is indirectly engaged in the business of insurance,” CJ Nandrajog added while dismissing the petition.
