BEFORE HEARING PIL TO RENAME ‘DINDOSHI’ METRO STATION AS ‘PATHANWADI’, BOMBAY HIGH COURT ASKS PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT RS 1 LAKH

The Bombay High Court before hearing the Public Interest Litigation of Petitioner, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 1 Lakh for seeking re-naming of a station on Mumbai Metro Line 7 back to ‘Pathanwadi’ from ‘Dindoshi’.

Naee Roshni Social Organisation, filled the Public Interest Litigation states that originally the metro station was named “Pathanwadi,”. However, the request made by the MLAs and due to the “Undue Political Pressure”, the MMRDA commissioner ordered that the station be called “Dindoshi” instead on January 18, 2019.

The Petition in the plea stated that the MMRDA has violated its own policy on naming metro stations, by changing the name of the metro station. The plea further states that that where there are more than two stations in a Revenew village, the metro station should be named after its nearest wadi.

The Bombay High Court observed in the present case that Malad has three metro stations, two on Line 2A and one on Metro Rail Line 7. The Line 7 and as per the policy it was already named “Pathanwadi,” Thereafter, but the name was subsequently changed to Dindoshi.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and the Justice MS Karnik observed and while hearing the counsel advocate Altaf Khan, appearing for the petitioner. The bench directed that the bench would hear the PIL only after the petitioners deposited Rs. 1 Lakh as per the pre-condition.

The plea states that the Other Social Organisation, Co-op. Housing Societies and the Petitioner as well as residents of Pathanwadi area of Malad have addressed repeated correspondences and representations to the Respondent putting forth their grievances with respect to the arbitrary and illegal manner in which the “Pathanwadi” Metro Station was renamed to “Dindoshi”. However, the respondent has failed and neglected to take any step-in furtherance of the representations of the residents of Pathan wadi’ and the Petitioner’s grievance remains unassuaged.