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. 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 constrained to file the aforesaid petition. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to the inaction of the authorities, the petitioner was constrained to file the aforesaid petition. 8. The premise on which the petition is essentially filed is that one member of the Society (named in the petition) had put up flags on the frontal portion of the road-facing compound wall of the society, without obtaining prior permission of the concerned authorities, thus, violating the provisions of the MPDP Act. Infact, the petitioner has annexed the photographs of the said flags which were illegally put up by the said member, without obtaining prior permission. 9. The petition was adjourned from time to time to enable the Corporation to take instructions and to file an affidavit-in-reply as to whether the same amounts to an offence under the provisions of MPDP Act and the action that is contemplated by the Corporation under the said Act. 10. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, Mr. Drupad Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has today tendered an affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Ganesh Shamrao Mudale, Senior Inspector (License), ‘F/North’ Ward, MCGM dated 4 th March 2025. The same is taken on record. Paras 3 to 12 of the said affidavit read thus:- “3. I say that without the written permission of the competent authority i.e. the officer authorised by Municipal Commissioner, the permanent or temporary display of flags of political parties, advertisements etc is not at all permissible. The restriction applies to both private and public places. I further say that only during election period and Ganapati and Navratri festivals the permissions are being granted as explained in the forthcoming paragraphs. 4. I say that the action of displaying the flags, without seeking permission of the Competent Authority, is punishable under section 328A read with 471 of the MMC Act, 1888 as well as under the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995. I say that illegally displayed flags are removed by BMC. The procedure regarding removal of flags and entertaining of complaints is provided in further paragraphs. 5. I say that a circular dated 20.03.2013 has been issued by the Municipal Corporation thereby making it clear that no permission shall be granted for display of any posters, banners etc. on Municipal Road and footpaths. The said circular is equally applicable to the display of flags on Roads and footpaths. 5. I say that a circular dated 20.03.2013 has been issued by the Municipal Corporation thereby making it clear that no permission shall be granted for display of any posters, banners etc. on Municipal Road and footpaths. The said circular is equally applicable to the display of flags on Roads and footpaths. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A is copy of circular dated 20.03.2013. It is thus clear that on roads and footpaths the display of flags is not at all permissible. 6. I further say that permissions to display the flags or banners on the premises of Corporation / Government / Public places / roads are not granted. However for certain events, the Municipal Commissioner may grant exemption, for example, event organized by the Government; event organized by the Corporation or any other event as deemed fit by the Commissioner. 7. I say that the permission for display of Flags and/or banners visible from any street are granted on Private premises subject to submission of No Objection Certificate from concerned land owner / House owner / Society. In the event where flat / premises is occupied by other than owner, then in such case, the No Objection Certificate shall be required from owner & occupier both. 8. I say that during the election period, subject to NOC of property owner and as per directions issued by Election Commission, the permissions are granted to display flags in the private property. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is copy of circular issued for last Legislative Assembly elections. 9. I say that the Municipal Corporation, in its general meeting dated 26.11.2007, has passed a Corporation resolution to permit display of posters, banners etc during Ganpati and Navratri Festival, subject to payment of charges. I say that the resolution is equally applicable to the display of flags. 10. I say that the directions have been issued from time to time to take effective steps for removal of illegally displayed flags. 1 say that citizens have been permitted to lodge their complaints. Said complaints can be made by following modes; i. Complaints on Twitter (X) handle:- The links of the said handles are mentioned in the chart annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit C. ii. Complaints on the BMC Portal:- The said online portal provides for user friendly mechanism to lodge the online complaint. Said complaints can be made by following modes; i. Complaints on Twitter (X) handle:- The links of the said handles are mentioned in the chart annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit C. ii. Complaints on the BMC Portal:- The said online portal provides for user friendly mechanism to lodge the online complaint. The screenshot of said portal is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit D. iii. Complaint on Toll free Number: The complaint can be made on toll free No. 1916. iv. Complaint on WhatsApp: The complaint can be made by sending photos and complaint on WhatsApp or through SMS. I say that list of Phone numbers is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit E. 11. I say that the action against illegal display of flags is taken in the following manner; i. BMC is having 24 ward offices. Each ward office is having Sr. Inspector (license). The said Inspectors have clear instructions to undertake everyday drive (8 AM to 10 AM and 3 PM to 5 PM) for removal of illegal banners, posters and flags displayed on public property i.e. roads and footpaths. ii. The register of all complaints, received physically, by post, WhatsApp, Twitter, email, Portal etc is maintained by each Sr. Inspector. After complaints are being redressed, the details thereof are also maintained in the register. iii. I say that directions have been issued to take steps to ensure that the issues raised in complaints are redressed as early as possible. iv. I say that License Department of BMC has issued a detailed guidelines through circular dated 27.12.2024. The said guidelines provide for complete procedure which is to be followed by the concerned officers. The said guidelines are equally applicable for display of flags also both in private and public places. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit F is copy of Circular dated 27.12.2024. 12. I say that the action has been routinely taken by the Corporation as against the illegally displayed flags. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit G is copy of statement showing the details of actions taken in last 6 months.” 11. To the affidavit-in-reply are annexed Circulars relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Patil states that said affidavit-in-reply and the actions sought to be taken under the MPDP Act will not only apply to F/N Ward, but to all wards of the Corporation. Mr. To the affidavit-in-reply are annexed Circulars relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Patil states that said affidavit-in-reply and the actions sought to be taken under the MPDP Act will not only apply to F/N Ward, but to all wards of the Corporation. Mr. Patil very fairly states that the Corporation ought to have acted with due diligence on receiving the email from the petitioner. He tenders due apology on behalf of the concerned Ward Officer for not acting with alacrity. He, however, submits that the concerned Ward Officer did not act promptly, since the representation was made to the Assistant Commissioner and not to the Senior Inspector (License), ‘F/N’ Ward, who is the authorised officer. Mr. Patil further states that this petition will be considered as a representation made to the Assistant Commissioner, F/N Ward, MCGM and that the said officer, will take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including issuance of notice to the concerned parties. Mr. Patil states that the petitioner’s representation will be decided and taken to its logical end. Statement accepted. 12. From a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that there is a mechanism in place, which is set out in detail in para 10 of the said affidavit-in-reply. Our only anxiety is that the Corporation ought to act with alacrity, when flags are displayed, without seeking permission of the Corporation. Mr. Patil, on instructions, assures that appropriate steps will be taken, if flags/banners are displayed illegally without seeking permission of the Corporation. Mr. Patil also states that the Corporation is abiding by the directions set out in the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Suswarajya Foundation, Satara and Anr. vs. The Collector, Satara and Others, PIL No.155 of 2011 and other connected matters decided on 31.01.2017, in particular para 59 of the said judgment, and has issued a Circular in terms of the same. He assures that the said Circular will be followed by the Corporation. Statements accepted. 13. vs. The Collector, Satara and Others, PIL No.155 of 2011 and other connected matters decided on 31.01.2017, in particular para 59 of the said judgment, and has issued a Circular in terms of the same. He assures that the said Circular will be followed by the Corporation. Statements accepted. 13. Since the petition will be treated as a representation made to the Assistant Commissioner, F/N Ward, MCGM, we expect that the Assistant Commissioner of the concerned Ward will decide the said representation, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after giving due hearing to the parties concerned i.e. the petitioner, Abhishek Sawant and the Society ie. Narottam Nivas Co-operative Housing Society. 14. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for further consideration in this petition. 15. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 16. Stand over to 22 nd April 2025. To be listed on the Supplementary Board, under the caption ‘for recording compliance’ for placing on record the order of the Assistant Commissioner, F/N Ward, MCGM. 17. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.