Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The writ petition impugns the challaning of the petitioner and upon non-payment of the challan amount, the consequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 357 & 397 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957 before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate. Notice of the writ petition was issued and vide interim order, coercive steps against the petitioner stayed.

2. While Section 357 supra inter alia prohibits owner/occupier of any premises from throwing / depositing rubbish upon any street, Section 397 supra inter alia prohibits deposit of material of any description in any public street. The petitioner was challaned with respect to the street outside its premises in Transport Centre at Punjabi Bagh, Rohtak Road, developed by the respondent No. 3 DDA.

3. The challenge to the challan / proceedings is made on the ground that the respondent No. 3 DDA having not handed over the operation of the said Transport Centre to the respondent No. 1 MCD, MCD is not entitled to challan or initiate the aforesaid proceedings.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2, being an official of the MCD has challaned / initiated the said proceedings against the petitioner for the reason of the petitioner refusing to pay the bribe demanded by the said official. It is further the case of the petitioner that the occupants of other properties in the said Transport Centre similarly placed as the petitioner but who have succumbed to the demand of the respondent No. 2 have not been so challaned.

5. Needless to state that the factual aspects cannot be the subject matter of writ jurisdiction and have also not been urged and are stated only to complete the picture.

6. The only ground urged is that without the respondent No. 3 DDA handing over the Transport Centre to the respondent MCD, the provisions of Sections 357 & 397 are not applicable thereto or to the streets within the said Transport Centre. The petitioner relies upon the response given by the respondent No. 3 DDA to the query of the petitioner and in which reply it was stated that civic services like scavenging of roads and storm water drains etc. in the said Transport Centre are being looked after by the respondent No. 3 DDA.

7. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court also on 28th July, 2009 directed the counsels for the respondents MCD and DDA to obtain specific instructions as to whether the said Transport Centre fell within the jurisdiction of MCD or not.

8. The respondent No. 3 DDA has filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the maintenance of civic services of the Transport Centre is yet to be handed over to MCD.

9. The respondent MCD in its counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner was challaned because the petitioner had deposited on the road outside its premises in the Transport Centre its goods, creating nuisance and insanitation conditions. The respondent MCD has asserted its right to take action therefor in accordance with law and has further asserted that the Transport Centre falls within its jurisdiction.

10. Finding that the provisions of the DMC Act by virtue of Section 1(2) thereof extend to "Delhi" defined in Section 2(10) of the Act as "the entire area of Union Territory of Delhi except New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment", it was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the Transport Centre fell in Delhi so defined or not.

11. The counsel for the petitioner while not controverting that the Transport Centre is in Delhi however refers to Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act) to contend that the Transport Centre is a "development area" within the meaning of the said provision. Reference is further made to para 42 of the judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1325 : 2006 (87) DRJ 8[SC] laying down that the Scheme under the DD Act is that during the development, it is the responsibility of DDA to demolish and seal any premises if there is contravention and after handin