Activist rebuts MNS chief Raj Thackeray’s toll issue claims

Activist Shreenivas Ghanekar, who, along with Eknath Shinde in 2012, had filed a petition challenging toll fees, refuted allegations made by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray in Kalyan. Ghanekar clarified that he had not withdrawn the petition from the court and disputed the accuracy of the information presented by Raj Thackeray. Raj Thackeray […]

by TDG Network - October 12, 2023, 11:41 am

Activist Shreenivas Ghanekar, who, along with Eknath Shinde in 2012, had filed a petition challenging toll fees, refuted allegations made by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray in Kalyan. Ghanekar clarified that he had not withdrawn the petition from the court and disputed the accuracy of the information presented by Raj Thackeray.
Raj Thackeray had previously raised concerns about the toll issue and warned the Eknath Shinde government, stating that MNS workers would take action if they were obstructed from ensuring toll exemptions for small vehicles. Thackeray had also questioned Shinde about the withdrawal of the toll-related petition.
It’s worth noting that Ghanekar was the petitioner, while Shinde was the co-petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Addressing a press conference in Kalyan, Ghanekar stated, “Raj Thackeray’s statement implies that I have reached a compromise with the toll company on this matter, whereas the reality is different. I was disheartened by his statement, so I decided to clarify my stance on the entire issue.”
“In 2018, after Shinde assumed the role of Minister of Public Works Department, I approached the High Court (HC) to remove his name as the second petitioner since he had become a respondent as the minister responsible for addressing my grievances,” the activist added. Ghanekar further explained, “During the hearing, the court determined that the second petitioner was in a position to address all the grievances raised in my petition. The court noted that if the first petitioner (myself) submitted representations to the second petitioner (Shinde), he would certainly address my grievances in accordance with the law.”