cc of letter dispatched by courier on 20/04/05
Mr AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning), DDA
Sub: Request for public debate with DMP2021 sub-group
on Trade & Commerce
Ref:Order passed by Hon'ble High Court today in WP
6980/2002
Dear Mr Jain,
In WP 6980/2002 (MPISG & Ors v/s DDA & Ar) today
Hon'ble High Court has ordered DDA to file reply in 4
weeks under signature of DDA VC, failing which he
shall have to appear in person, and to pay costs of
10,000/-, recoverable from the officers responsible
for the delay in filing reply.
Permit us to recall to you that the PIL is targeted
against auction of space in markets on freehold basis
for unrestricted use, inclusive of amalgamation, in
violation of various DMP provisions that collectively
ensure that planned markets in residential areas are
used for only and all local commercial needs so as to
preserve amenity, not stress infrastructure, ensure
local business opportunities, prevent
commercialisation of residential space, etc.
It was first heard on 31/10/2002. In January DDA filed
counter affidavit. We filed rejoinder. MoUD failed to
reply. In December 2003 the court ordered us to file
additional affidavit detailing out violations at
Master Plan, Zonal Plan and sub-zonal plan levels,
which we did, and in August 2004 DDA and MoUD were
ordered to file replies to that, which they did not.
On 06/01/05 we were dismissed for non-prosecution. On
12/01/05 the court permitted us to restore our PIL
subject to costs of 5000/- and directed DDA to file
reply in 4 weeks. We wrote thrice to you to request
reply and likewise to DDA VC on 09/04/05 (enclosed).
Since illegalities against which our PIL is targeted
stand legitimised (in line with various proposals
certain civil-society groups have been advocating for
hawkers, parking, redevelopment, transportation,
villages, etc) in draft DMP2021 for which Public
Notice was issued on 08/04/05, restoring the PIL ?
which does not have any specific prayers, but is
germane to challenges to the same illegalities through
subsequent constitutional processes that do ? became
imperative and we restored it.
Today DDA sought last opportunity to file reply, etc.
The matter is listed for 27 July, by when the 90-day
period of DMP2021 Public Notice will have elapsed. As
mentioned in our letter of 09/04/05, a serious
conflict has arisen between, on one hand, our PIL,
etc, and, on the other, DMP2021 Public Notice process.
On 31/10/02, the Hon'ble Court was not inclined to
grant our sole prayer, viz, quashing of tender whose
illegality we had challenged only because we had
approached it too late (on day of auction) and had
issued notice "to see that in case the petitioners
would succeed any direction for future guidance may be
issued". We believe (and DDA veritably concedes in
counter-affidavit of January 2003) that we have amply
demonstrated the said illegalities that DMP2021 seeks
to legitimize without the Hon'ble Court having had
opportunity to give directions for future guidance and
that this places the commercial use proposals of
DMP2021 on precarious footing.
We hope DDA will file in 4 weeks (ie, within DMP2021
Public Notice period) reply that meets the situation.
If in our view it does not, we will be constrained to
file DMP2021 Public Notice responses to suggest
holding its related portions in abeyance even though
we are loathe to hold up finalisation of DMP2021.
We would much prefer that you arrange ? in the context
of our PIL, etc, but independent of proceedings
therein ? a public debate between us and DMP2021
sub-group on Trade & Commerce at the earliest to
enable meaningful constructive participation through
DMP2021 Public Notice.
Do let us know forthwith if you are inclined to do so
or if you have any other suggestion since we are as
determined as you are duty-bound to resolve such
conflicts.
Yours sincerely
(on behalf of all associated with the PIL, etc)
Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG Planner
cc: by eml
* Principal Commissioner cum Secretary (in
continuation of suggestion of 08/04/05)
* mpisgmedia mailing list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mr AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning), DDA
Sub: Request for public debate with DMP2021 sub-group
on Trade & Commerce
Ref:Order passed by Hon'ble High Court today in WP
6980/2002
Dear Mr Jain,
In WP 6980/2002 (MPISG & Ors v/s DDA & Ar) today
Hon'ble High Court has ordered DDA to file reply in 4
weeks under signature of DDA VC, failing which he
shall have to appear in person, and to pay costs of
10,000/-, recoverable from the officers responsible
for the delay in filing reply.
Permit us to recall to you that the PIL is targeted
against auction of space in markets on freehold basis
for unrestricted use, inclusive of amalgamation, in
violation of various DMP provisions that collectively
ensure that planned markets in residential areas are
used for only and all local commercial needs so as to
preserve amenity, not stress infrastructure, ensure
local business opportunities, prevent
commercialisation of residential space, etc.
It was first heard on 31/10/2002. In January DDA filed
counter affidavit. We filed rejoinder. MoUD failed to
reply. In December 2003 the court ordered us to file
additional affidavit detailing out violations at
Master Plan, Zonal Plan and sub-zonal plan levels,
which we did, and in August 2004 DDA and MoUD were
ordered to file replies to that, which they did not.
On 06/01/05 we were dismissed for non-prosecution. On
12/01/05 the court permitted us to restore our PIL
subject to costs of 5000/- and directed DDA to file
reply in 4 weeks. We wrote thrice to you to request
reply and likewise to DDA VC on 09/04/05 (enclosed).
Since illegalities against which our PIL is targeted
stand legitimised (in line with various proposals
certain civil-society groups have been advocating for
hawkers, parking, redevelopment, transportation,
villages, etc) in draft DMP2021 for which Public
Notice was issued on 08/04/05, restoring the PIL ?
which does not have any specific prayers, but is
germane to challenges to the same illegalities through
subsequent constitutional processes that do ? became
imperative and we restored it.
Today DDA sought last opportunity to file reply, etc.
The matter is listed for 27 July, by when the 90-day
period of DMP2021 Public Notice will have elapsed. As
mentioned in our letter of 09/04/05, a serious
conflict has arisen between, on one hand, our PIL,
etc, and, on the other, DMP2021 Public Notice process.
On 31/10/02, the Hon'ble Court was not inclined to
grant our sole prayer, viz, quashing of tender whose
illegality we had challenged only because we had
approached it too late (on day of auction) and had
issued notice "to see that in case the petitioners
would succeed any direction for future guidance may be
issued". We believe (and DDA veritably concedes in
counter-affidavit of January 2003) that we have amply
demonstrated the said illegalities that DMP2021 seeks
to legitimize without the Hon'ble Court having had
opportunity to give directions for future guidance and
that this places the commercial use proposals of
DMP2021 on precarious footing.
We hope DDA will file in 4 weeks (ie, within DMP2021
Public Notice period) reply that meets the situation.
If in our view it does not, we will be constrained to
file DMP2021 Public Notice responses to suggest
holding its related portions in abeyance even though
we are loathe to hold up finalisation of DMP2021.
We would much prefer that you arrange ? in the context
of our PIL, etc, but independent of proceedings
therein ? a public debate between us and DMP2021
sub-group on Trade & Commerce at the earliest to
enable meaningful constructive participation through
DMP2021 Public Notice.
Do let us know forthwith if you are inclined to do so
or if you have any other suggestion since we are as
determined as you are duty-bound to resolve such
conflicts.
Yours sincerely
(on behalf of all associated with the PIL, etc)
Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG Planner
cc: by eml
* Principal Commissioner cum Secretary (in
continuation of suggestion of 08/04/05)
* mpisgmedia mailing list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com