The Municipal Corporation must act promptly against unauthorized displays of flags, as stipulated by the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend to delete the respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the array of respondents. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Mr. Patil waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Addl. G.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent-State.

4. The petitioner is a 72 year old retired Army Officer, an alumnus of the National Defence Academy, Indian Military Academy, College of Military Engineering and Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management. The petitioner is also a veteran of the 1971 war with Pakistan. The respondent No.1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) represented through the Commissioner and the respondent No.2 is the Assistant Commissioner of the Ward in which the petitioner's society is situated. According to the petitioner, he being a diligent citizen has filed several complaints of rearing, selling and killing of pigeons on the society terrace where he lives i.e. Narottam Nivas Co-operative Housing Society, Sion (West), Mumbai, before the Maharashtra State Police Complaints Authority, resulting in a direction to the Sion Police Station to register an FIR against the persons responsible. The petitioner has also made certain grievances against the society, however, we are not concerned with the same and as such it is not necessary to go into the same.

5. According to the petitioner on 19^th November 2023, he noticed five flags being put up by one Abhishek Sawant, a member of the society in which the petitioner lives on the frontal portion of the road-facing compound wall of the society. It is the petitioner's case that the said flags were put up without obtaining prior permission of the concerned department i.e. MCGM. This according to the petitioner constituted grave violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995 (‘MPDP Act’). To the petition, the petitioner has annexed photographs of the said flags which according to him were put up by one, Abhishek Sawant, without obtaining prior permission.

6. It is the petitioner's case that on noticing the said flags, he immediately sent a legal notice dated 19^th November 2023 to the Secretary of the Society and to all the society members of the Committee, setting out the same i.e. one Abhishek Sawant had put up flags without obtaining prior permission of the society. To the petition is annexed the legal notice addressed by the petitioner, to the society. According to the petitioner, he had also addressed an Email to the Corporation on 20^th November 2023 i.e. to the Assistant Commissioner F/N Ward Mr. Chakrapani Alle (respondent No.2). To the petition is annexed a copy of the said email dated 20^th November 2023 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 making a complaint against one Abhishek Sawant, stating therein, that Abhishek Sawant had hoisted flags in collusion with the members of the Managing Committee. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent No.2 failed to act promptly despite making the said representation and lodging a formal complaint vide the said email. According to the petitioner, he also addressed an email dated 27^th November 2023 and sought sanction of the Maharashtra Government to prosecute the respondent No.2 for failing to perform his duty. The said letter sent to the Government of Maharashtra, is at Exhibit- ‘D’ on page 19 of the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Sections 3 and 4 of the MPDP Act, the Corporation should have taken steps to ensure that an FIR is registered against the persons responsible for putting up the flags, without seeking the permission of the Corporation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to the inaction of the authorities, the petitioner was constr