[mpisgmedia] IT Park case / other updates / MPISG meeting

In WP 6500/2005 (Gita Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors, in
the matter of constructions at Shastri Park on the
riverbed, including commercial IT Park that was
inaugurated on 02/04/05 by Chief Minister Ms Sheila
Dikshit with area MP Mr Sandeep Dikshit, DMRC MD Mr E
Sreedharan and DMRC Chairman Mr Anil Baijal, also
Secretary MoUD), filed on 07/04/05 High Court had
issued notice to Respondents on 13/04/05 to file
replies in two weeks, which they did not do.

On second hearing on 23/05/05 Mr Mukul Rohtagi,
appearing for DMRC, led the defence claiming that
nothing survived in the petition -- on basis of a
Gazette Notification of land use change for IT Park,
dated 25/04/05 (ie, within the two-weeks in which they
had to file replies), which Mr Sapra, appearing for
DDA, brought to court just before the matter was

Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr KG Gopalkrishnan,
pointed out that far from making the petition
infructuous, the Notification only proved its
contention of post-facto regularisation of illegal
construction and frivolousness about Public Notice
safeguard. It was also pointed out that permissions
prior to 25/04/05 would all be illegal.

Respondents have been directed to file
counter-affidavits including all their permissions,
Petitioner to file rejoinder in a week thereafter and
the matter is listed for 29/08/05. The court granted
neither a stay on further construction at Shastri Park
nor the dismissal that Respondents were obviously
pitching for (Mr Rohtagi would hardly have bothered to
come by just for an adjournment).

Petition w/o annexures is at:

The immediate reaction was of bafflement and
disappointment. But come to think of it, all did as
well as could be expected in petition by one planner
to single judge against wildly celebrated illegality.
Gopal stood our ground firmly and politely. I added my
two-bits nearly likewise. Even Mr Rohtagi did not
press hard for dismissal after the opening remark
about nothing surviving in my petition and only made
self-assured claims of impossible permissions and
routine remarks about public interest served by the
project and riverbed not being water-body but dry
land. Mr Sapra, after trying some land-acquisition
drivel that interested none, just spoke of the
notifications (they had also one of November 2004 for
Public Notice of December 2002 for
property-development at metro stations on
Shahdra-TisHazari corridor and 52 hectares of riverbed
for Shastri Park depot and more at Khyber Pass). GNCTD
and MoUD counsel said nothing. Lordship said
Respondents must reply to my contentions.

The Gazette Notification said 150 objections were
received and Central Government, after carefully
considering all aspects of the matter, decided to
modify the Plan. After Central Government
after-carefully-considering-all-aspects has decided
and gazetted that it is all-right, gentlemen-in-black
can hardly make it reply to my contention that it is
all wrong – wrong for the state to break the
law, wrong for state bosses to celebrate their
wrong-doing, wrong to tolerate or cheer their
celebration, wrong to suffer the anomie in which
unambiguously admitted illegal construction of this
commercial icon on riverbed coincided with unlawful
closure of industries and unlawful riverbank evictions
that drove children to die.

This Central Government will also
carefully-consider-all-aspects of responses to Public
Notice for DMP-2021. Maybe we should to ask what means
careful-consideration-of-all-aspects or get really
out-of-the-box and seek clemency for Sahara-scamsters,
being hounded for lesser albeit yellower post-facto


Some are planning an MPISG meeting for synergising on
DMP2021 Public Notice, tentatively on 29/05/05 around
4 PM at Rangpuri Pahari. Those inclined to join /
organise are requested to say so on this list.

Update on other matters in court, etc

The matter of the other anomie-icon, MCD-Manushi
pilot-project model-market, has been progressing. As
intervener MPISG was permitted to make submissions on
17/05/05 and we picked holes in MCD-Manushi claims of
conformity with Master Plan (they did!), conformity
with National Policy, wide approvals and piloting of
some larger goodness. Our submissions are posted at:
Our letter to MCD Asst Commissioner asking for
confirmation of legality and propriety of a Public
Notice he issued for policy implementation on 22/05/05
is posted at:
Related to all this informalization with NGO mediated
micro-credit and what not, is my response to Standing
Committee press notice published on 16/05/05 to invite
opinion / views on SJSRY, posted at:


In the free-seats mess, on 16/05/05 respondents had
not filed counter-affidavits and as the matter was
being adjourned counsel for the Action Committee of
Unaided Schools asked about the consideration of their
scheme as per order of 5/05/05 and counsel for Delhi
Government said government had rejected it and
Lordship asked why. I sought and got permission to
submit that Lordship herself had pointed out that
their scheme required statute amendment, while our
intervention had as annex a scheme compliant with both
Delhi School Education Act and Delhi Development Act
and we had written to LG, as administrator of both
Acts, for its consideration pursuant to the last order
of the Court and would be obliged if Lordship also
asked the parties to consider our scheme. I was
directed to give a copy to the counsel who were most
helpful and have copies for their clients to consider.
Our letter of 10/05/05 to LG with reference to which I
made the request is at:
The scheme / annex is the note for the meeting with
schools on 08/02/05, at:
post about hearing on 05/05/05 is at:


Arjun Camp (Sahara) matters were listed on 20/05/05.
News reports of 19/05/05 about the Sahara-scam accused
had raised hopes, but the matters did not reach. DDA
had not filed summary of submissions ordered in
January and its counsels were not present. We
mentioned urgency in view of DMP2021 Public Notice and
managed only listing on 05/07/07 (two days before end
of Public Notice). Things are quiet on Pushta despite
the revived clearance order (about which people there
wrote to suggest IT-Park first). Meanwhile the Mumbai
Model seems on course, with political advice and
support to citizens in Kalkaji slums for approaching
the courts to demand it. Manjit Singh, former
Commissioner Slums, who has been sharing dais in VP
Singh meetings on this issue was in court on 23/05/05
but I was unable to wait to figure out what about.
posts of earlier this month:
letter of 06/06/05 to DDA VC re Kalkaji Extn
letter of 08/05/05 re mumbai-model project at taikhand
/ urls of previous posts
letter of 09/05/05 re rally call by Mr VP Singh


In our PIL against illegal disposal of planned
commercial space, no reply has been filed on the order
of 20/04/05 for reply under signature of DDA VC with
10,000 costs to Lawyers Welfare Fund. DDA counsel
informed me on 20/05/05 that DDA was filing an
application for exemption of VC from personal
appearance and for more time to reply and on 23/05/05
that the application will perhaps be moved on


In our PIL for Plan entitlements of villages and
against illegal projects in Mehrauli Mahipalpur ridge
area the proper reply ordered from DDA on 27/05/05 has
not been filed. MCD has replied to claim no role in
the petition, though it is otherwise administering the
illegal farmhouse misuse policy and also commissioning
something called local area plans also for villages as
part of its so-called bye-law reform


About bye-law reform, MCD had another consultative
meeting on 17/05/05. We see no point in writing to it
about the mess it seems to be thoroughly enjoying
making by trying to amend through this USAID promoted
exercise whose techno-legal basis it refuses to
clarify both MCD Act and DDA Act (not to mention
positing half a dozen barely commissioned
local-area-plan projects, whatever they are, as some
progressive alternative to master-planning). We also
see no point in writing to DUAC and ITPI and others
about their expert-doings during Public Notice period
that seem to clearly point to the absurdity of DMP2021
experts entirely disowning the Plan that has been
published for public comment under their authorship.


Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Urban Development has
invited vide letter of 18/05/05 some people to give
evidence on memoranda submitted in 2003 in response to
its public notice inviting views on DDA after CBI
caught the DDA scam. None of those involved in the
above matters since 2000-2001 have been invited, not
even the Arjun Camp / Rajiv Gandhi Camp residents
whose case is directly connected to the Sahara case.
Even DSF that won the Sultangarhi judgment, that
caught the scam six months before CBI caught it, has
not been invited. I am invited and the rest on the
list seem mostly RWAs or experts involved in Master
Plan subversion processes and / or known to favour the
idea of dismantling DDA in name (and in my view gross
misreading) of the 74th Amendment. The hearing is on


:) Rajinder met an association of Uttranchalis facing
evictions in Delhi and Wildrift also met them
seperately. They consider my argument that Ms Dikshit
cannot be claiming Tehri water on grounds of migrants
from Uttranchal extremely sane. So ticket-to-asylum
that someone was prescribing for me on that count is

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site

  • Re: [mpisgmedia] IT Park case / other updates / MPISG meeting
    • From: sarbajit roy
  • Re: [mpisgmedia] ... SJSRY (PMO above Parliament?)
    • From: Gita Dewan Verma
  • Partial thread listing: