Bombay High Court questions maintainability of PIL seeking change in name of metro station

The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the maintainability of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which sought directions for changing the name of a metro station of the Mumbai Metro Rail Project from ‘Pathanwadi’ to 'Dindoshi' [Naee Roshni Social Organisation vs MMRDA & Anr.]..The PIL filed by Naee Roshni Social Organisation claimed that the name assigned to the station was in sheer violation of a policy framed by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) itself, governing the naming of metro stations.A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja, however, asked how a PIL would be maintainable for naming or renaming of a railway station.“Is a committee report (of the MMRDA) enforceable in court of law? You have to show a right and that such right has been infringed. How is the present plea a PIL… for naming a railway station? What public interest is going to be served? These (policies) are guidelines for administrative purposes, cannot be enforced,” the Bench remarked.After the petitioner lawyer sought time to satisfy the queries of the Court, the Bench listed the matter for hearing on Thursday..When the plea filed through advocate Altaf Khan was listed earlier, the Court had asked the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh as pre-condition which the petitioner agreed to do.The plea claimed that renaming of 'Pathanwadi' Metro Station to 'Dindoshi' was in sheer violation of the policy framed by MMRDA.According to MMRDA's policy, when there are more than two stations in a revenue village, the nearest Wadi's name should be considered for one of the stations.However, in the present case, MMRDA had originally named the station on line 7 as 'Pathanwadi'.As per the petitioner, under undue political pressure and pursuant to requests of two MLAs, Atul Bhatkhalkar and Sunil Prabhu, the name of 'Pathanwadi' station was changed to 'Dindoshi'.The plea pointed out that as per the documents obtained under the RTI Act, MMRDA itself admitted that 'Dindoshi' is the name of a nearby revenue village and not of the nearest Wadi.It was claimed that the renaming of the station was arbitrary and affected the sentiments of residents of 'Pathanwadi' and was, therefore, in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.